communication to the public Archives

Mihály Ficsor on Svensson and communications to the public

The Svensson opinion of the CJEU has gained considerable attention. The focus has primarily been on the controversial topic of whether hyperlinks to a work on the Internet should be considered as making the work available and hence be part of the author’s right of communication to the public. However, the opinion also further extends precedents of the CJEU how to determine whether communications are “to the public”. In a seminal paper, Dr. Ficsor the former Deputy Director General of WIPO carefully examines these precedents and points out errors in the opinions.…

View Post

Aereo infringes says international associations and copyright scholars to SCOTUS

Earlier today, a number of international and foreign associations and copyright scholars filed an Amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the ABC, Inc. et al v. Aereo, Inc case. The brief brings to the attention of the SCOTUS a number of international treaties and trade agreements respecting copyright that impose obligations on the United States to provide copyright holders with a broad technologically neutral communication to the public right that would cover all aspects of Aereo’s service and make its service infringing.…

View Post

When hyperlinks infringe copyright: Svensson v Retriever Sverige

Earlier today, the CJEU released an important decision on whether the making available right gives copyright holders a right to authorize the use of hyperlinks to copyright content. In Case C-466/12 Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB, (13 February 2014) the CJEU ruled that an ordinary “clickable” hyperlink makes a work available to the public. However, if the link is to a publically available portion of a website used by the rights holder to make work available to the same public as the link, it is not made available to a new public and the right is not infringed.…

View Post

Streaming websites blocked in UK: Paramount v Sky

The England High Court recently made an order requiring ISPs to block two linking websites located at http://www.solarmovie.so (“SolarMovie”) and http://www.tubeplus.me (“TubePlus”). In doing so, the court in Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch) (13 November 2013) ruled that the sites, which did not themselves host any content, were nevertheless liable for infringement because they facilitated streaming of content to users by hosting and organizing hyperlinks to the content without consent of copyright owners.…

View Post

Cablevision: How It and Its Doctrines Have Fared Around the World

The annual Fordham IP law conference is, in my view, second to none. This year”s Fordham’s 21st Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law and Policy was sensational. Great program and fabulous international faculty. IPkat reported on some of the sessions.

On Friday, I was on a panel Performance Rights in Copyright: Public, Private or “Digital”? The speakers and panelists with me were Profs. Tyler Ochoa (Santa Clara U. School of Law) and Jane Ginsburg (Columbia), David Ellen (GC Cablevision), Dr. Silke von Lewinski (Max Planck Institute for IP) and Janet Cullum (Cooley).…

View Post

Aereo legal for now in New York

The Second Circuit released an important opinion yesterday ruling that Aereo’s New York based Internet streaming service does not infringe the US public performance right. In WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc 2013 WL 1285591 (2^nd.Cir.Apr, 1, 2013), by a two to one majority, the Court ruled that the technical architecture of the service which is based on “renting” mini-antennas and transcoders to members of the public that are used to stream over the air live broadcasts renders the service non-infringing.…

View Post

Internet retransmission of broadcasts a communication to the public, rules the CJEU

The European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that retransmitting broadcasts over the internet infringes the communication to the public right, if done without authorization. The case involved TV Catchup Limited which operated an internet based live streaming service of broadcast television programmes.

The UK High Court in ITV Broadcasting Ltd & Ors v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat) (18 July 2011) referred the case to the EU Court of Justice (the CJEU). The case involved answering two questions. First, whether grabbing the over the air broadcasts and retransmitting them over the Internet was a communication.…

View Post

Yesterday, I gave a talk at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 17h Annual Intellectual Property Law: The Year in Review program. My talk canvassed developments in copyright in Canada and around the world in 2012. My slides are shown below. The associated paper prepared in collaboration with Glen Bloom, with the help of others, is available here.

The following copyright cases from Canada, the USA, UK and Ireland, Australia, and Europe are dealt with in the paper and slides.…

View Post

Copyright Board to construe the making available right

In the ESA v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34 case, the Supreme Court decided by a 5 to 4 majority that the transmission of a copy of a musical work to members of the public is not a communication to the public within the meaning of Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act. When the Copyright Modernization Act was enacted the communication to the public right was expanded to expressly confer on copyright holders making available rights required by the WIPO Treaties.…

View Post

SOCAN sued for $15 million refund of ringtones payments

Yesterday, Rogers, Telus, Bell and Quebecor commenced an action against the copyright collective SOCAN. In the Federal Court suit Canada’s leading carriers are claiming a refund of all royalties paid to SOCAN under its Tariff 24 (Ringtone) tariffs since November, 2006.

SOCAN’s Ringtone tariffs claimed royalties from mobile service providers which sold ringtones (short excerpts of music works used to indicate incoming calls or text messages on mobile devices) and transmitted them to customers. SOCAN claimed those downloads were communications to the public by telecommunication under Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, a right administered by SOCAN.…

View Post

Subscribe