|There are times when your |
communications to the public
may not be the
most agreeable ones
Following the pretty controversial decision in Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 Murphy in October 2011 (noted here and here), on 15 March last the Court delivered two judgments which attempted to clarify the (still) obscure boundaries of the right in question.
|No communication to the |
public in dentist waiting
rooms, said the CJEU
- If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC ...?
- Is the assessment under question 1 affected if the work to which the link refers is on a website on the Internet which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?
- When making the assessment under question 1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website?
- Is it possible for a Member State to give wider protection to authors' exclusive right by enabling 'communication to the public' to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC ...?
|But what about clickable links?|
Merpel thinks that this reference is quite an important one. This is also in light of the pretty heated debates (see here, here, here ...) which have arisen in the UK following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Meltwater (the case is currently pending before the UK Supreme Court, which is expected to hear it sometime in early 2013).