Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Mark Clough
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina Korgol
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

New judgment on the communication to the public right

August 22, 2018By Preiskel & Co

On 7 August the judgment in Case C-161/17 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff was published.

The judgment is in response to a preliminary reference which asked the following question:

‘Does the inclusion of a work — which is freely accessible to all internet users on a third-party website with the consent of the copyright holder — on a person’s own publicly accessible website constitute a making available of that work to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [Directive 2001/29] if the work is first copied onto a server and is uploaded from there to that person’s own website?’

What constitutes a violation of the rightholder’s communication to the public right is set out in case law to consist of a number of elements. Firstly, a communication of copyright material must be made. Secondly, that communication must be made to a public. A public is an “indeterminate number of people”, and for the right to be violated, the communication must be made to a “new public”. Where the communication to the public is made via a different technical means to the original communication of the copyright material, there is an assumption that it is made to a new public.

It has previously been held that hyperlinking to material published online with the rightholder’s consent does not constitute a communication to the public (Case C-466/122 Svensson and others). This is the case even where “deep-linking” or “framing” is used, so that it appears to the internet user as if the copyright material is on the website which contains the hyperlink (Case C-348/13 BestWater International).  The exception to this rule is where the hyperlink is to material which was published online without the rightholder’s consent (Case C-160/15 GS Media)

This new judgment relates to a case where a school pupil used a photograph which was available on a website with the rightholder’s permission to embellish a presentation. The pupil’s work was then put onto the school’s website. The Court has ruled that this constituted a communication to the public.

This conclusion may raise eyebrows, given that the court has previously held that in giving permission for copyright material to be published online, the rightholder has given permission for it to be published to an audience of essentially every internet user, unless restrictions are placed on access to that material. It is difficult to reconcile this with the conclusion in this case that there was a communication to a new public. Moreover, while technically there is a difference between downloading and re-posting material on a website and deep-linking to or “framing” that material, it is unlikely the average internet user will be able to ascertain a difference between the two.

Interestingly, the Advocate General Opinion reached a different conclusion, stating that this scenario should not be considered a communication to the public.

The communication to the public right, outlined in Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, has been the subject of multiple preliminary references to the European Court of Justice. It seems unlikely, however, that this latest judgment will lend enough clarity to the right to prevent further references.

 

copyright
Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • Claim against NHS Trust for breach of DPA 1998 and misuse of private information dismissed
    April 28, 2022
  • TikTok Class action for the Misuse of Child Personal Data
    April 28, 2022
  • ICO consultation on draft guidance for the research provisions within the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018
    April 20, 2022
  • European Strategy for Artificial Intelligence – a framework to regulate AI and its potential impact on the UK
    April 19, 2022
  • Meta hit by 17 million euro fine by Irish regulator
    April 19, 2022
  • Ofcom has mandated that telecoms providers ensure British Sign Language (BSL) for 999
    March 18, 2022
  • Ofcom publishes statement on the future of telephone numbers
    March 15, 2022
  • German court sends biometric data questions to the ECJ
    February 23, 2022
  • Meta fined £1.5m by CMA
    February 7, 2022
  • International data transfer agreement and addendum laid before Parliament
    February 4, 2022
  • CMA publishes statement of scope in music and streaming market study
    February 1, 2022
  • Google Privacy Sandbox faces European Commission complaint from German publishers
    January 24, 2022

The Preiskel Blog

  • Claim against NHS Trust for breach of DPA 1998 and misuse of private information dismissed 28 Apr 2022
  • TikTok Class action for the Misuse of Child Personal Data 28 Apr 2022
  • ICO consultation on draft guidance for the research provisions within the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 20 Apr 2022
  • European Strategy for Artificial Intelligence – a framework to regulate AI and its potential impact on the UK 19 Apr 2022

Preiskel news

  • Daniel Preiskel and Xavier Prida lecturing to Academia Mexicana del Derecho Informático and Abogado Digital
  • Preiskel & Co advises Mexico-based premium content production company Dopamine
  • Danny Preiskel was ranked as a Global Elite Thought Leader in Telecoms & Media by WhosWhoLegal Data 2022
  • Danny Preiskel featured in GCCM (Global Carrier Community Magazine)
Preiskel tweets
  • @jwrosewell @m4aow @w3c @IABTechLab Our pleasure!61 days ago
  • RT @jwrosewell: Great work from @Preiskel and the whole @m4aow team. Thank you. Much for @w3c, @IABTechLab, and others to consider in this…61 days ago
  • RT @TC_4KBW: Google’s battle with publishers shows that at every turn it seeks to block others from competing. it blocked header bidding, b…61 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2022 | Site map | Legal notices | Privacy | Cookie Policy | Privacy | Fraud Notice