Articles

Find my address… if you can: Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and Google

Find my address… if you can : Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and

Find my address… if you can: Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and Google

11.08.2020 EU law

On 9 July 2020, the CJEU clarified the scope of the right of information in the context of IP rights infringement proceedings.

On 9 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) clarified the scope of the right of information in the context of IP rights infringement proceedings (Case C-264/19), which is enshrined in Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (the “Directive”).

Constantin Film Verleih – i.e., the applicant – has exclusive exploitation rights in respect of cinematographic works such as Parker and Scary Movie 5. Those works were uploaded on Youtube in infringement of the applicant's rights. Under Art. 8 of the Directive, Constantin Film Verleih demands that Youtube and Google (the parent company of Youtube) provide it with a set of information on users who have uploaded those works. Having obtained only fictitious user names, it requests additional information, such as e-mail addresses, mobile telephone numbers and IP addresses.

Pursuant to Art. 8 of the Directive, judicial authorities may order information from the infringer (and/or other person, such as Youtube and Google) “on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right”. The list of information includes, inter alia, “the names and addresses of producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as recipient wholesalers and retailers” (Art. 8(2)(a)). The questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the meaning of the concept “addresses”.

According to the CJEU, this term is an independent concept of Union law (§ 28). Because it is not defined by Union law, its scope and meaning must then be determined “in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language” (§ 29). The Court rules that the usual meaning refers only to the postal address, “that is to say, the place of a given person’s permanent address or habitual residence” (§ 30). The concept “address” does therefore not refer to e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses (§ 30). As a result, Youtube is not obliged to transfer detailed personal data from uploaders who have infringed copyright.

However, the CJEU seems to be indirectly admitting that its interpretation may be too strict. In the present case, Constantin Film Verleih only obtained fictitious names, as Youtube does not check identities and does not ask for postal addresses when registering users wishing to upload content. The interpretation given by the CJEU does thus not allow the applicant to ensure the effective exercise of its intellectual property rights (that is however the objective of the Directive) by identifying the infringers. The Court then points out that the Directive provides for minimum harmonisation (§ 36) and that the Member States are free to lay down the possibility of ordering the communication of e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses in their national legal framework (§ 39).

In its ruling, the CJEU follows the opinion of the Advocate General (AG) delivered on 2 April 2020, who justified his literal interpretation on the definition of the term “address” given by the Académie française, i.e. “the designation of the place where you can reach someone”. The Court could, however, have opted for a more flexible interpretation, more suited to today's realities. Indeed, the Académie française dictionary adds another meaning that is not included in the AG’s opinion: an address is also, by extension, an “indicative of the location of information stored in a computer”. Moreover, next to the definition of address as postal address, the Cambridge Dictionary also defines address as “a series of letters and symbols that tell you where to find something on the internet or show where an email is sent to”.

In short, it is on the one hand regrettable that the CJEU has adopted a rather conservative view, which is hard to reconcile with current and future technologies. On the other hand, this ruling may be justified by the desire not to add yet another layer of obligations on platforms, which have recently been heavily targeted by the CJEU itself and the European legislator.

 

By Edouard Cruysmans, Cyril Fischer and Erik Valgaeren

 

1 See for instance the InfoSoc directive 2019/790 (Art. 17), the P2B Regulation 2019/1150, the Piesczek v Facebook case law of the CJEU (C-18/18).

 

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

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

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

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more