Case clearly suggesting a broadening of the scope of
Acourts have already applied the principles of the CJEU decision where a YouTube video has been introduced suggesting that national courts will consider incorporating some form of hyperlink. Unfortunately the CJEU did not expand more on what for profit means. This could therefore arguably cover any commercial activity or even the use of hyperlinks on blogs where ads on them generate income. In the past the CJEU has taken the approach that a hyperlink will be displayed for a profit where doing so makes the persons business more attractive. In a very recent decision applying this principle by a German court a website with the intention of making profits satisfied the for a profit requirement.Finally the decision introduces what it calls a system of notice and withdrawal. Essentially a copyright Country Email List holder can notify the person who posted that the content linked to was not uploaded with their permission and ask them to take it down. As a result the person who posted was clearly informed that the content was not authorized and that it is covered by the CJEU ruling. This was the case with GS Media where they were repeatedly asked to remove the hyperlinks.
https://zh-cn.buylead.me/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/roslin-country-email-list-300x175.jpg
Comment As a result of the decision its even more important to carefully check the source of any content you link to. There will no doubt be cases to come regarding the CJEUs ruling particularly regarding exactly what for profit means but for now a cautious approach should be taken. Meanwhile the judgment of the CJEU in the second case Stichting Brein is also worth reading . The Advocate General recently gave his opinion on thiswhat constitutes a communication to the public. In this case the CJEU also ruled that The notion of public communication within the meaning of Article of Directive EC of the European Parliament.
頁:
[1]