Copyright - online enforcement Flashcards
Pinckney
Concerned infringing CDs, marketed by UK company, made in Austria, French individual wanted to claim. Was accessibility of the website in France enough to claim from France? Yes, targeting rejected as criteria, damage was suffered there so can claim under Article 7. Mosaic principle - better to claim from jurisdiction where event giving rise to damage took place so all damages can be recovered.
Hedjuk
Austrian photographer had her photos made available on a German website by a German individual. Brussels regulations were interpreted so she could bring a claim from anywhere that the work was accessible. AG thought that accessibility criterion were inadequate, concerned ‘causal event’ criterion (place where event giving rise to delocalised damage occured) no limitation in damages. Court held that the court has jurisdiction to hear actions for damages in respect of infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible from its territorial jurisdiction. The court can only rule on damage caused within the MS in which it is situated.
L’Oreal
Article 15 prevents obligation of filtering
Scarlet and Netlog
Cannot issue an injunction requiring ISPs to install systems for filtering (1) all electronic communications, (2) applying indiscriminately to all its customers, (3) as a preventative measure, (4) exclusively at ISPs expense, and (5) for an unlimited period.
Telekabel
Injunctions are compatible, up to MS to chose how to enact an injunction, must prove to take all reasonable measures and respect freedom of information of internet users.
Carter and others v BskyB and others
No real alternatives to injunctions, block circumvention is an issue, but there has been reduction in infringements, not up to rightholders to decide efficacy. ISPs to bear enforcement costs, safeguards against abuse (time limit, involvement of users)
Rome Court of First Instance
Could MegaVideo be eligible for safe harbour protection? No - it is not a passive host, because of factors including geographically targeted adverts and organisation of contents into categories. However, no obligation to monitor (Scarlet), finding otherwise would unacceptably restrict freedom of info/expression. Also held that MegaVideo had acted unlawfully in not acting in regard to takedown requests containing name of programmes but not URL. Contrary to suggestion in L’Oreal that safe harbour protection cannot be trumped by insufficiently precise takedown requests?
