Keyword: communication to the public

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive external link

Quintais, J. & Husovec, M.
GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, vol. 70, num: 4, pp: 325-348, 2021

Abstract

Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.

Article 17, communication to the public, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, frontpage; copyright law, intermediaries, Licensing

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2021GRURInt, title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive}, author = {Quintais, J. and Husovec, M.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200 }, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200}, year = {0218}, date = {2021-02-18}, journal = {GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law}, volume = {70}, number = {4}, pages = {325-348}, abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.}, keywords = {Article 17, communication to the public, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, frontpage; copyright law, intermediaries, Licensing}, }

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.
2020

Abstract

Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]

Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing

Bibtex

Article{Husovec2020c, title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463011}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-29}, abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]}, keywords = {Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing}, }

German Federal Court of Justice asks CJEU if YouTube is directly liable for user-uploaded content external link

Mil, J. van
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , vol. 14, num: 5, pp: 355-356, 2019

Abstract

On 13 September 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the question whether YouTube performs acts of communication to the public when its users upload unauthorized content onto this platform.

communication to the public, Copyright, duitsland, frontpage, YouTube

Bibtex

Article{Mil2019b, title = {German Federal Court of Justice asks CJEU if YouTube is directly liable for user-uploaded content}, author = {Mil and J. van}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz034}, year = {0507}, date = {2019-05-07}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice }, volume = {14}, number = {5}, pages = {355-356}, abstract = {On 13 September 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the question whether YouTube performs acts of communication to the public when its users upload unauthorized content onto this platform.}, keywords = {communication to the public, Copyright, duitsland, frontpage, YouTube}, }

EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public external link

Quintais, J. & Rendas, T.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , vol. 2018, num: 9, pp: 711-719, 2018

Abstract

This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion. The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.

cloud, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, Infosoc Directive, private copying, VCAST

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2018b, title = {EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public}, author = {Quintais, J. and Rendas, T.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3113215}, year = {0202}, date = {2018-02-02}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice }, volume = {2018}, number = {9}, pages = {711-719}, abstract = {This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion. The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.}, keywords = {cloud, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, Infosoc Directive, private copying, VCAST}, }

Communication to a New Public? Three reasons why EU copyright law can do without a ‘new public’ external link

Hugenholtz, P. & Velze, S.C. van
IIC (International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law), vol. 47, num: 7, pp: 797-816, 2016

Abstract

This article critically examines the 'new public' test in EU copyright law, which was developed by the CJEU interpreting the right of communication to the public in cases of retransmission and hyperlinking. As the authors seek to demonstrate, this test is flawed for at least three reasons: historical, conceptual and economic. EU copyright law can do well without a 'new public' test.

aggregation, Auteursrecht, Berne Convention, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, hyperlinking, new public

Bibtex

Article{Hugenholtz2016b, title = {Communication to a New Public? Three reasons why EU copyright law can do without a ‘new public’}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Velze, S.C. van}, url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-016-0512-7?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorAssignedToIssue}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0512-7}, year = {1118}, date = {2016-11-18}, journal = {IIC (International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law)}, volume = {47}, number = {7}, pages = {797-816}, abstract = {This article critically examines the \'new public\' test in EU copyright law, which was developed by the CJEU interpreting the right of communication to the public in cases of retransmission and hyperlinking. As the authors seek to demonstrate, this test is flawed for at least three reasons: historical, conceptual and economic. EU copyright law can do well without a \'new public\' test.}, keywords = {aggregation, Auteursrecht, Berne Convention, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, hyperlinking, new public}, }