(1) ruling that "an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.” Thus, under certain circumstances, search engines can be asked to remove links to webpages containing personal data. (see also CIS blog post) (2) On November 26, 2014, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party issued the Guidelines on the Implementation of the CJEU Judgment on Google Spain v. Costeja, 14/EN WP 225, which are summarized in this CIS blog post.
The ECJ stated that EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a court injunction that does not specify the measures which an access provider must take to block access to a website making available copyrighted material without the rightsholders’ permission. Additionally, the ECJ concludes that blocking orders can be imposed on access providers when they can avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of that injunction by showing that they have taken all reasonable measures. According to the ECJ, measures are deemed “reasonable” provided that (i) they do not unnecessarily deprive internet users of the possibility of lawfully accessing the information available and (ii) they have the effect of preventing unauthorized access to copyrighted materials or, at least, of seriously discouraging internet users from...
The ECJ decided that links to authorized works freely available online do not infringe the E.U.-recognized exclusive right of communication to the public. The case involved journalists claiming that the website Retriever Sverige had improperly linked to news articles they had authored, thereby making those articles available to the public without permission, in violation of copyright law. (1) For the first time, the ECJ announced a rule that links communicate works to the public, which is a copyright owner’s sole prerogative under EU law. However, the court said that those links are not infringing and do not need additional authorization from the copyright owner unless they make the work available to a new public (par. 25-28). A new public must include people other than those who can access the work thanks to the...
Angelopoulos, Christina, Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe (November 28, 2013). Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2013-3, p. 253-274.; Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2013-72; Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2013-11. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2360997
This case considered the relative jurisdiction of EU Member States under the Brussels I convention in a copyright case involving online CD sales. It concluded that mere site accessibility, rather than targeting, could be enough to support jurisdiction. It noted that copyright was distinct from other claims previously considered by the court, both because of specific provisions in the Regulation and because copyright arises simultaneously in all Member States. As the court explained its reasoning, "Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has...
The Commission specifically prioritizes tackling excessive fragmentation of notice-and-take-down (or "notice-and-action") procedures in European jurisdictions (3.4, main action 12). This fragmentation in turn leads to a high level of legal uncertainty that makes Europe an uneasy business environment for intermediaries.