European Copyright Society Says Hyperlinks (And Framing) Should Not Be Infringing

from the good-for-them dept

The Spanish Pirate Party points us to a recently released opinion by the European Copyright Society concerning whether or not hyperlinks themselves may be infringing. The paper was written by 19 European legal scholars, concerning a specific case before the European Court of Justice, Case C-466/12 Svensson, which is yet another case of a news aggregator being sued for daring to link its customers to relevant articles. The reporter, Mr. Svensson, argues that even though the aggregator, Retriever, only posted links, they were “making available” the work. The European Copyright Society is not buying it, noting that hyperlinking is much more akin to a footnote:

Clearly, hyperlinking involves some sort of act – an intervention. But it is not, for that reason alone, an act of communication. This is because there is no transmission. The act of communication rather is to be understood as equivalent to electronic “transmission” of the work, or placing the work into an electronic network or system from which it can be accessed.

This is because hyperlinks do not transmit a work, (to which they link) they merely provide the viewer with information as to the location of a page that the user can choose to access or not. There is thus no communication of the work. As Abella J explained, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (in a case concerning hyperlinks and defamation):

“Communicating something is very different from merely communicating that something exists or where it exists. The former involves dissemination of the content, and suggests control over both the content and whether the content will reach an audience at all, while the latter does not.
…
Hyperlinks … share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral — it expresses no opinion, nor does it have any control over, the content to which it refers.”

Basically, since a hyperlink just points you somewhere it’s not transmitting the work, there’s no copyright violation. The paper goes into significantly more detail, citing case law around the globe to support its position. It also warns the court that while this may seem like a simple issue, it’s vitally important to the health of the internet:

The legal regulation of hyperlinking thus carries with it enormous capacity to interfere with the operation of the Internet, and therefore with access to information, freedom of expression, freedom to conduct business, as well – of course – with business ventures that depend on these types of linkages. Europe has developed a significant sector of SMEs, many of whose web operations depend on the use and provision of links. The Court must not under-estimate the importance of its ruling in this case.

Also of note, is that the opinion paper says that the same reasoning applies equally to “framing.” This is a bit more controversial, but we’ve always pointed out that embedding and framing are no different than linking, since they’re merely pointing a computer from where to pull information, and the EU Copyright Society agrees:

In principle, we are unable to see why “framing” as it is often called, should be treated any differently for copyright purposes from hyperlinking.

[…]

In so far as there might be technical differences in some cases where the work is made available from the server of a person providing a hyperlink, it is our view that, even were there an act of communication or making available, such a communication or making available is not “to the public” because it is not to a “new” public – it is a public which already had the possibility of access to the material from the web. Just as an improved search-engine that improves the ability of users to locate material for which they are searching should not be required to obtain permission as a matter of copyright law, so providing links or access to material already publicly available should not be regarded as an act that requires any authorisation.

They do say that framing may give rise to other forms of liability, including unfair competition or moral rights, but that is separate from the copyright question before the court.

Considering how much pushback there has been recently in terms of companies arguing that links are infringing, this is nice to see. Here in the US, there’s a similar case going on between the Associated Press and clipping service Meltwater. Hopefully common sense wins the day in both cases, and mere linking or framing is not seen as copyright infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, europe, framing, linking

Dear HuffPo: Feel Free To Send Techdirt Traffic

from the plus,-google-should-fix-its-seo dept

Let me kick this of by saying that I’m a big fan of The Verge, which has quickly become a top tech site for many. I don’t always agree with what’s written there (I don’t always agree with what’s written anywhere!), but it tends to regularly produce high quality work. The Verge is at its best with its long form pieces that combine well-written narrative with great design and layout. A recent example of this was with its excellent history of the American arcade. That story got passed around a bunch — I know I had it sent to me at least half a dozen times. It’s a wonderful story if you haven’t read it.

It was then interesting to see The Verge’s Editor-in-Chief, Joshua Topolsky, take to Twitter to demand that Huffington Post remove a snippet and link to that story.

Formal public request. @bbosker and @huffingtonpost, please remove the content you’ve scraped from us. huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/the… Seriously.

— Joshua Topolsky (@joshuatopolsky) January 23, 2013

You can see the Huffington Post version here. I’m having a very hard time figuring out what Topolsky is complaining about. The HuffPo piece quotes the first paragraph and the first paragraph only and then has a prominent link to the full story at The Verge. The original Verge article is 47 paragraphs long — plus amazing graphics, design and video. So… I’m sort of at a loss as to how anyone might think that the HuffPo snippet and link takes away from the original. HuffPo’s Bianca Bosker shot back something along those lines, noting that it was just a short snippet and drove traffic to The Verge:

@joshuatopolsky that was a story we linked out to on huffpost to drive traffic/readers to The Verge, which it looks like it did 1/2

— Bianca Bosker (@bbosker) January 23, 2013

In response Topolsky explained more that his problem with it was that it hurt The Verge’s SEO (search engine optimization) on such stories.

What’s most egregious about this @huffingtonpost scrape is its theft of our SEO on title and text. Google “death of the american arcade”

— Joshua Topolsky (@joshuatopolsky) January 23, 2013

But I’m at a complete loss as to how that’s “egregious” on the part of the Huffington Post. It would appear that this is solely an issue with the way Google’s ranking system works. I’ve long thought that this was a weakness of Google. We’ve had many sites that scrape our content in its entirety — and, as we’ve noted countless times — we’re absolutely fine with that. But I am often surprised at how often we see other sources listed above ours in Google. But that’s always struck us as a problem with Google (and with how Google views us), rather than anything worth pinning the blame on the sites that copied our content.

In the meantime, though, having discovered in the past just how much traffic a link from HuffPo can drive, we’d like to offer up Techdirt as a site that HuffPo can freely link to whenever they want. We won’t complain to them. Though, if Google ranks them higher in search, we might complain to Google…

Filed Under: aggregating, huffington post, linking, seo, the verge, traffic

Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading… Not So Much

from the odd-choices dept

Here are two copyright stories coming out of the Netherlands, one good and one bad. The first is that the Dutch government has rejected an effort to make downloading copyrighted works for personal use infringement. There is, of course, an existing “you must be a criminal” tax on blank media there, which is part of the reason why such downloads are considered okay. Of course, now we only have to wonder how long it will be until the Netherlands shows up on the US’s Special 301 report for “naughty” countries who don’t follow Hollywood’s extreme maximalist positions.

Of course, the entertainment industry may be much happier about a different copyright issue in the Netherlands. A court ruling in The Hague found that “embedding or linking to radio-streams without a license constitutes a violation of copyright.” This is particularly crazy because it includes linking to a station’s own stream. Yes, you read that right. This isn’t talking about pointing to infringing streams, but to legitimate ones. And the court still found it to be infringing.

‘Nederland.fm’ embeds radio-streams from other (official) radio websites, while ‘Op.fm’ offers hyperlinks to those streams. Buma/Stemra argued that the websites enable users to listen to the music offered on the streams, and that this should be constituted as a ‘publication’ of the music to the public. The court followed this reasoning, primarily based on the fact that ‘Nederland.nl’ and ‘Op.nl’ not only offer streams or links, but they capture the consumer on their page, by playing the music within their own environment and because this environment, including ads, stays visible after clicking the links and buttons of radio stations.

That makes no sense at all. Just because someone makes money in some other manner doesn’t mean they automatically owe money to someone else when they were using their legal streams. Unfortunately, we keep seeing wacky rulings like this around the globe that just muddy the picture when it comes to creating sensible copyright policies.

Filed Under: downloading, embedding, infringement, linking, netherlands

Google Asks Germans To Protest 'Pay To Link' Proposal As It Comes Close To Becoming Law

from the dumb-proposals dept

For a few years now, we’ve been following attempts in Germany — mainly driven by newspaper publishers — to create a bizarre new copyright-like right (specifically a “neighbor right”) in “linking” such that a site like Google would have to pay sites that it links to. The bizarre and nonsensical argument is that because a site like Google makes some of its money by linking to sites, those sites “deserve” part of the money. This is problematic for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is it’s fundamentally backwards economically. If sites like Google are making money from directing people to other sites, they’re making money because they provide a valuable service in helping people find the content, not because of the content itself. It’s up to the sites themselves to figure out how to monetize the traffic — not to run to the government to force others to pay. And, if you think this is just a Google issue, you’re wrong. Among the proposals was one that would impact many others, including people posting links on blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other sites.

The final proposal would be wide reaching in impact, and make it ridiculous to run a search engine or any kind of aggregator in Germany:

The new section, if introduced, would provide the “producer of news materials” the general “exclusive right to make said materials publicly available, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes,” according to an unofficial translation of the German Government’s proposals.

Others would be permitted to provide “public access” to the publishers’ material unless those providing that access are “commercial operators of search engines or commercial providers of services that aggregate this content in a respective fashion”. News publishers’ right to control the commercial exploitation of their work in this regard would extend for a year after publication. Authors of the work would be entitled to be “provided with a reasonable share of the remunerations issuing from the author’s work”.

The German government is set to take up the issue on Thursday and Google has realized that maybe it should let folks in Germany know that this proposal would seriously cut into their internet services. As Google accurately notes, if the law passes it will mean “higher costs, less information and massive legal uncertainty.” That’s what happens when you insist that content providers who fail to monetize traffic somehow “deserve” money from a third party that is helping people find them.

The logic behind this bill makes no sense. Do we require that GPS service providers pay stores for directing people to where they’re located? Of course not. The very concept is ludicrous. Yet that’s exactly what this bill is doing in Germany.

Most ridiculous of all: if publishers don’t like being in Google’s results, they can already opt-out. So if this was really “piracy” as the publishers claim, they have a solution already at their disposal. But this isn’t about piracy at all, of course. It’s about publishers who haven’t been able to adapt seeing Google make lots of money and getting jealous. So they’re demanding a cut of the money. It’s a sad statement on the nature of both publishers and German copyright law that this proposal is even being seriously considered.

Filed Under: copyright, germany, linking, neighboring rights, pay to link, search engines
Companies: google

Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

A somewhat troubling ruling has come out of a court in the Netherlands, where it has found that linking to infringing content could be infringing itself, if certain conditions are met (which they were in this case). The key part here was that the site that was sued was linking to material first, and thus revealing it to the world… even though it does not appear that the site in question uploaded or hosted the content. This is troubling for a variety of reasons which we’ll get to, but first the background of the case.

A Dutch television presenter, Britt Dekker, did a nude photoshoot for Playboy, and a bunch of the images leaked ahead of the December, 2011 release of the magazine. A website called GeenStijl.nl had a story about it, and included a link to a zip file that contained all the images that had been uploaded to the cyberlocker FileFactory.com. Playboy had the file taken down from FileFactory, and GeenStijl linked again to the same images on Imageshack. And from there a game of whac-a-mole followed with Playboy having the images taken down, but the images quickly spread all over the place. For what it’s worth, at the time, there was a lot of speculation that Playboy itself had leaked the images to build up buzz.

Either way, GeenStijl got sued for copyright infringement — and they responded by pointing out that they just linked to the content. The court put forth a three pronged test, and found that GeenStijl, even with just links, met the criteria for infringement. As explained on the FutureOfCopyright site (linked above):

The court considered if the publishing of the hyperlinks by GeenStijl.nl constituted a publication (Dutch: ‘openbaarmaking’) as defined in article 12 of the Dutch Copyright Act. In principle, placing a hyperlink on a website is not a publication, unless three criteria are met: there must be an intervention, a new audience and profit.

• Intervention: The leaked pictures of Britt Dekker were stored on FileFactory.com, a cloud service to store files and share them with others. However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files. The URL to the file with the leaked pictures was publicly unknown, until GeenStijl.nl made it available to its large audience by publishing an article about it, the court says. Therefore, the actions of GeenStijl.nl are an intervention, according to the court. Without this intervention, the public wouldn’t have had access to the pictures before their official publication in Playboy.
• New audience: According to the court, there wasn’t an audience for the pictures before GeenStijl.nl published its article.
• Profit: By publishing the URL to the pictures, GeenStijl.nl had the unmistakable intention to attract more visitors, the court states. With success: in 2011, the article about Dekker was the best viewed topic on GeenStijl.nl, according to the statistics.

By my reading, all three of the prongs of the test, as presented here, are somewhat problematic. The reasoning on the first prong — intervention — just doesn’t seem right. The claim that “the public wouldn’t have had access” but for the link on GeenStijl isn’t true. They did have access since the files were already on the cyberlocker. GeenStijl perhaps made it a lot more widely known, but at this point you’re arguing about whether or not it’s legal to make a factual statement. Did the photos exist on a cyberlocker? Yes. Saying so shouldn’t be infringing.

The second prong really just seems like a repeat of the first prong. The entire argument that seems to have convinced the court is that GeenStijl was the first to link to the content. Under US law you face much more liability for leaking “pre-release” material, so you could argue that this is a similar situation in the Netherlands, but again, it’s not GeenStijl “leaking” the material. They’re acting as a journalist, telling people such content exists.

The final prong is completely useless. Basically it seems to say that because the article was popular, that’s evidence for infringement. I can’t see how that makes any sense at all. If GeenStijl was, for example, selling access to the images, then there’s a much stronger argument of “profit.” But just saying that because the site got a lot of traffic, they profited seems like a dangerous precedent.

The Future of Copyright article mentions the cases against FTD as being similar, but I’m not sure that’s true. While a lower court had found FTD guilty for linking, on appeal it was said that links weren’t the problem, it was the promoting of uploads that got FTD in trouble.

Either way, it’s of little surprise that Tim Kuik, the head of the Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, is cheering on this ruling, suggesting that this case will be useful in other efforts to go after sites that link to infringing content. Of course, given the specific nature of the ruling, including how much of it seemed to rely on the fact that GeenStijl was the first to somehow create an audience for these images, I do wonder if it really has that much value for BREIN in those types of cases. Similarly, it may be a bit exaggerated to claim — as GeenStijl did in response to the ruling — that the ruling outlaws Google. Again, the ruling does appear to be highly fact-specific.

It is a troubling ruling for a number of reasons. Merely setting up the precedent that a link itself is infringement has all sorts of problematic implications. But the highly specific details associated with the ruling, especially the reliance on being the first to publish the link, at least suggests that this has limited value as a wider precedent.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, linking, netherlands, playboy, tim kuik
Companies: brein, geenstijl, playboy

RapidShare: It Ain't The Hosting, It's The Linking

from the quick,-look-over-there! dept

A few years ago, RapidShare and Megaupload were often mentioned in the same breath as the two “evils” of the internet, according to the MPAA. However, a few interesting things happened. First, Rapidshare won a series of lawsuits both in Europe and the US, that found its service to be legit. The company also went on something of a big time charm offensive, hiring a DC lobbyist to improve its image with politicians, as well as being much more proactive with the press. Finally, in the last few months, it’s made even more efforts to stop its service from being used for infringing purposes.

The latest thing, though, seems particularly silly. At a conference, the company’s Chief Legal Officer, Daniel Raimer, appears to be throwing links sites under the bus by claiming that they’re the real problem, and storage sites shouldn’t be lumped in with linking sites.

The thing is, both kinds of sites have both legal and illegal purposes, and it’s silly and counterproductive for one kind to blame the other kind. Storage sites have perfectly reasonable uses, and RapidShare has been bending over backwards to be a good player in that space. But a user-generated site that includes links to content also can have perfectly legitimate and legal uses, and it seems particularly silly to assume otherwise. From a legal standpoint, both kinds of sites should have reasonable protections against infringement (though that doesn’t always appear to be true once things get to court). But, even then, storage sites probably even have less of a reasonable claim under copyright law, because actual copies (reproduction rights) and distribution could potentially be attributed to them (though, clearly, they have reasonable claims of safe harbors). With links sites, they neither store nor transmit the content, and it’s difficult to see how they infringe on any of the key rights associated with copyright, even outside of the basic safe harbors.

Filed Under: copyright, cyberlockers, hosting, linking, search
Companies: rapidshare

Rojadirecta Points Court To FlavaWorks Ruling Concerning Infringement On Linking Sites

from the time-for-a-wake-up-call dept

We recently wrote about the (somewhat surprising) ruling by Judge Posner in the 7th Circuit appeals court’s Flava Works vs. myVidster case, in which Posner pointed out that a site providing links to infringing content is not infringing. He actually ruled that just watching the videos or embedding them are not direct infringement either. As we noted that seemed to have direct bearing on a number of other cases out there, including the criminal charges against Rojadirecta (and against TVShack’s Richard O’Dwyer). It appears that Rojadirecta’s lawyers wasted little time in letting the judge in their cases know about the ruling. While Rojadirecta’s fight is in the 2nd Circuit, hopefully this helps the courts to recognize how ridiculous the governments’ charges are. Even if they don’t quite agree with Posners’ ruling, just the fact that there are significant questions over whether or not linking/embedding are legal, should raise significant questions about the “willfulness” needed to show criminal copyright infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, liabiity, linking, rojadirecta
Companies: flava works, puerto 80

Canadian Court Issues Triple-Whammy Ruling In Favor Of Free Speech And Commentary Online

from the fair-dealing dept

Close on the heels of Canada’s recent copyright reform bill (which despite significant problems also contains some fantastic language that carves out important new exceptions to copyright) the Federal Court of Canada has issued a significant ruling that answers some key questions about copyright online. The decision is in a lawsuit filed by Richard Warman and the National Post against the operator of a forum, and looks at two main points: the right to quote news articles, and the right to link to a photo. On the first question, the court made it clear that even a several-paragraph quote is protected, on not just one but two levels:

While the first claim (Warman’s article) was dismissed on the basis that it took too long to file the lawsuit, the legal analysis on the National Post claim involving an article by Jonathan Kay assesses the copyright implications of posting several paragraphs from an article online. In this case, the article was 11 paragraphs long. The reproduction on the Free Dominion site included the headline, three complete paragraphs and part of a fourth. The court ruled that this amount of copying did not constitute a “substantial part” of the work and therefore there was no infringement. The court added that in the alternative, the reproduction of the work was covered by fair dealing, concluding that a large and liberal interpretation of news reporting would include posts to the discussion forum. The decision then includes an analysis of the six factor test and concludes that the use was fair.

Both aspects of that part of the ruling are clear and could have a huge impact on copyright licensing in Canada. Perhaps most notably, as Michael Geist also points out, it raises even more serious questions about the disastrous situation surrounding Access Copyright negotiations at Canadian colleges and universities, and makes the already terrible deal (which many schools are signing on to) look even worse. Unfortunately, since the AUCC all but abandoned its members in those negotiations, many schools will have a hard time benefitting from this ruling—but for those universities that have decided to reject the deal and fight the good fight, the ruling represents a substantial boon to their position.

On the subject of linking to a photo, the decision lays down a third important standard, and is again unequivocal about doing so:

The third claim involved a link to a photograph posted on the photographer’s site. The court had no trouble concluding that the link was not copyright infringement, rightly noting that the photographer authorized the communication of the work by posting it on his website. This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized communication and therefore infringement.

To many of us, that’s just common sense: putting something on the internet constitutes a public invitation to link to it. But for years, time and time again we’ve seen courts and companies around the world attempt to claim that linking is infringement, or otherwise not allowed. And, indeed, this also has serious implications for the Access Copyright agreement, which has schools paying licensing fees and obeying rules for linking to material, despite it becoming clearer and clearer that copyright does not cover these activities.

All told, this is an excellent decision, and offers further proof that Canada has the very real potential to move copyright law in a positive direction. There are still lots of battles to be fought, but there’s also a genuine emphasis on the rights of users (especially in the courts) that can hopefully be harnessed and nurtured more and more over time.

Filed Under: canada, fair dealing, jonathan kay, linking, richard warman
Companies: access copyright, national post

AOL Threatens Blogger With Copyright Infringement Charge… For Doing The Exact Same Thing AOL Has Done On A Large Scale

from the shameful dept

There have been plenty of accusations made against AOL’s the Huffington Post concerning its habit of “over aggregating” content from other sites. While, personally, I think people who accuse HuffPo of being just an aggregator are overreacting on two separate issues (one: HuffPo does a ton of actual reporting also and two: HuffPo’s aggregating adds value in its own way), it would be pretty damn hypocritical for AOL to then threaten another blogger for doing exactly the same thing that HuffPo does, wouldn’t it?

Enter, Maryland Juice. A local Maryland blog, which recently had a post about some happenings in Montgomery County, which included relatively large excerpts of parts of an article from Patch, another property owned by AOL. It also included an image from the article. The Maryland Juice article included a significant amount of commentary about the article and, in particular, the photo, which was used to illustrate the point (that it was not a representative sample of county residents at the local meeting). And, yet… AOL lawyers sent a cease and desist letter:

As owner of the Content, AOL has the obligation to prevent the improper use of its proprietary material. Before pursuing any additional avenues to remove the Infringing Content, we are demanding that MarylandJuice.com take immediate steps to remove Patch’s image and either 1) display no more than a 1-2 sentence snippet of this Content, with credit explicitly given as well as a link back to the full article available at http://wheatonmd. patch.com/articles/proposed-rule-change-for-accessory-apartments-meets-opposition ; or 2) remove and disable access to all Infringing Content, and agree to never repost or use the Infringing Content or any other AOL Content, absent compliance with the third-party use guidelines identified above.

David, the Maryland Juice blogger, explains how excerpting, discussing and linking is all part of being neighborly online, and tells AOL to shove off, claiming fair use. Of course, you know who should know an awful lot about this kind of thing? Yeah, AOL and HuffPo. You see, a few years ago, when HuffPo tried to do its own “hyper local site,” it was accused of doing more or less the exact same thing (but with less commentary, and more copying):

And seeding HuffPo Chicago is a scheme whereby the publication takes some — in many cases all — of the content from another site, with a link back to the original.

The result is quick and easy traffic for the new Chicago edition, since the publication ends up catching some Google searches for keywords contained in the (Chicago-related) articles it takes. HuffPo already has good Google PageRank, so its own version of the content floats to the top of the results, even though it was not the original source.

HuffPo‘s justification, at least when the publication was pulling this crap with us, taking the entirety of our RSS feeds, was that the reprinted posts were good promotion, since they included (a totally buried) backlink to the original content on our site.

But, apparently, when someone does it to AOL, it’s no longer okay? Now that’s hypocritical.

Filed Under: aggregation, chicago, fair use, linking, maryland, maryland juice
Companies: aol, huffington post, patch

Irish Charity Told It Needs To Pay A License Fee To Link To A Newspaper Article

from the uh,-no dept

Via Mathew Ingram we learn of a ridiculous situation in Ireland, where the organization “Newspaper Licensing Ireland” has sent an email to the Women’s Aid charity, telling it that linking to newspaper websites without a license is copyright infringement:

“a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website”

The lawyer representing Women’s Aid smartly posted its own reply publicly asking NLI to “specify the statutory basis of this claim.” It also notes the pricelist, including the fact that NLI seems to think that linking to between one and five articles requires €300 annually. Furthermore, the letter notes the terms of service on various news websites that allow linking — even though this is really besides the point, since copyright law does not forbid linking in the first place.

Filed Under: ireland, licensing, linking, women's aid
Companies: newspaper licensing ireland