Articles

National legislations may extend broadcasting organizations’ exclusive right provided in the EU Copyright Directive

National legislations may extend broadcasting organizations’ exclusive right provided in the EU Copyright Directive

National legislations may extend broadcasting organizations’ exclusive right provided in the EU Copyright Directive

30.04.2015 EU law

On 26 March 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) held that the EU Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related right in the information society) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislations to extend the exclusive rights of broadcasting organizations beyond the legal protection as set forth in Article 3(2)(d) of the EU Copyright Directive, provided that such protection does not undermine that of copyright.

The issue before the Swedish Supreme Court concerned the alleged infringement of the rights of C More Entertainment AB. C More Entertainment is a pay-TV station that offers live streaming of ice hockey matches on its website. Mr Sandberg places links on his website that allows Internet users to access C More Entertainment’s website and watch the live streaming of two hockey matches for free. In this context, the Swedish Supreme Court submitted five questions to the CJEU, but subsequently decided to withdraw four of them (which were already answered by the recent Svensson case C-466/12). In substance, the remaining question was: “May the Member State (MS) give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover greater range of acts than those provided for in Article 3(2) of the EU Copyright Directive?”

As an introductory point, the CJEU restates Article 3(2)(d) of the EU Copyright Directive whereby “MS are to provide for the exclusive right for broadcasting organizations to authorize or prohibit the making available of fixations of their broadcasts to the public, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” The CJEU clarifies that the “making available to the public” was actually included within the concept of “communication to the public” referred to in Article 3(1) of the Directive. In any event, in order for an act to fall under the category “making available to the public” and thus to benefit from the protection of Article 3(2)(d), this act must (i) make it possible for the public to access the protected work from a place chosen by them and (ii) at a time chosen by them. However, the transmissions made available by Mr Sandberg cannot be considered as amounting to “interactive on-demand transmissions”. Nevertheless, the Swedish legislation affords a wider protection as it is not limited to acts that make works available “on demand”.

The CJEU states firstly that the objective of the EU Copyright Directive was not to remove any differences between national legislations that do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. Therefore, the EU Copyright Directive has only partially harmonized the copyright legal framework. Then, the Court, relying on Directive 2006/115 on rental and lending rights and certain rights related to copyright, affirms that MS should be able to provide, on a national level, for wider protection than the protection afforded under the EU Copyright Directive. The Court concludes that Article 3(2) of the EU Copyright Directive does not preclude an MS to grant broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit acts of communication to the public (with no consideration about whether this act also represents an act of making available to the public) of their transmissions, but provided that such protection does not undermine that of copyright. This ruling is in line with Recital 7 of the EU Copyright Directive whereby “the directive does not have the objective of removing or preventing differences that do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market”.

This case is particularly interesting in the way that it moves away from the precedent CJUE ruling in the Svensson case. In the latter case, the CJUE was asked whether an MS could extend the protection afforded to the copyright holders through an extension, on a domestic basis, of the notion of “communication to the public” under Article 3(1) of the EU Copyright Directive. The CJUE answered in the negative, stating that if it had held otherwise, the objective pursued by the EU Copyright Directive would have been undermined. The CJUE held that allowing the MS to widen the concept of “communication to the public” would necessarily affect the functioning of the internal market. Conversely, in the present case, the CJUE, presumably because it reads the EU Copyright Directive in conjunction with Directive 2001/29, allows MS to extend the rights set forth in Article 3(2) of the EU Copyright Directive.

The case (C-279/13) can be found on http://curia.europa.eu.

Click here to read a PDF version of the 51st edition of our ICT Law Newsletter

 

Team

Related news

22.07.2021 NL law
Towards a European legal framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence

Short Reads - Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Although the use of artificial intelligence is nothing new and dates back to Alan Turing (the godfather of computational theory), prominent researchers – along with Stephen Hawking – have expressed their concerns about the unregulated use of AI systems and their impact on society as we know it.

Read more

19.07.2021 BE law
One year of Schrems II: a state of affairs for international data transfers

Articles - International data transfers have been the subject of intense debates ever since the Court of Justice issued its landmark judgement of Schrems I, on 6 October 2015. The intensity of the debate was further reinforced since the Schrems II decision one year ago, on 16 July 2020. The decision annulled the U.S. Privacy Shield and severely tightened the rules on the use of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”).

Read more

18.05.2021 NL law
Kroniek: De bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG

Articles - Tom Barkhuysen, Steven Bastiaans en Fatma Çapkurt (Universiteit Leiden) schreven samen de eerste editie van de nieuwe jaarlijkse NTB kroniek: de bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG. Hierin bespreken zij onder meer de meest relevante (bestuursrechtelijke) jurisprudentie van het afgelopen jaar op het gebied van de AVG.

Read more

18.06.2021 NL law
FAQ: Wat houdt het Wetsvoorstel elektronische gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg (Wegiz) in en wat is de verhouding tot de AVG?

Short Reads - (Digitale) gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg is een actueel thema. Illustratief is een item bij EenVandaag van april 2021 waarin de analoge werkwijze bij gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg wordt aangekaart, maar ook dit artikel in het NRC van afgelopen maand waarin verslag werd gedaan van een datalek waardoor duizenden gevoelige patiëntgegevens op straat kwamen te liggen. 

Read more

04.05.2021 NL law
Participatie en privacyregels: hoe te combineren onder de Omgevingswet?

Short Reads - In het stelsel van de Omgevingswet (Ow) is een belangrijke rol bedacht voor participatie bij de totstandkoming van besluiten. Het beoogde resultaat: tijdig belangen, meningen en creativiteit op tafel krijgen en daarmee een groter draagvlak en kwalitatief betere besluitvorming bereiken. Door een grotere betrokkenheid van meer personen gaan overheden en initiatiefnemers ook meer persoonsgegevens verwerken. Dit brengt privacyrisico’s met zich mee. Wat regelt de Ow op het gebied van privacy, de verwerking van persoonsgegevens en datagebruik?

Read more