When a TV programme is transmitted via direct injection, who makes the act of communication to the public?
Not to worry: a direct injection of copyright cases is already in sight |
With the summer break
close to an end, new copyright adventures are just about to happen at the Court
of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the joy of aficionados everywhere
in the EU and beyond.
While the first copyright
decision will be that in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn (notion of parody under Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc
Directive) [here, here and here] on
3 September, last Friday the UK Intellectual Property Office
circulated notice of a new case that has made its way to
everybody's favourite court.
It is Case C-325/14 SBS
Belgium, a reference from ... Belgium, seeking clarification as to the
following:
Does a broadcasting
organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of
direct injection [...] make a communication to the public within the meaning of
Article 3 of [the InfoSoc Directive]?
First of all, what does "direct
injection" mean?
Direct
injection refers to the situation where the
broadcasting company connects to the network of one or more cable companies
directly. The programme in question is not first broadcast via ether or
satellite and then retransmitted via cable as usually is the case, but is
broadcast for the first time via cable.
So the
question referred to the CJEU is not about whether there is an act of
communication to the public, but rather who makes it: is it the broadcaster,
even if it does not broadcast directly to the public? Is it the subject
(different from the broadcaster) who broadcasts it for the first time via
cable? Is it both?
Who
knows.
A
thorough explanation of the background to this case can be found on helpful EU
resource EU
Law Radar, where - quite interestingly - this reference
made its first appearance on 9 July last.
Why is
that interesting? Because the UK IPO circulated its notice only two days ago.
This would not be too bad, if not for the fact that those who wish to comment
on this case must hurry up: the deadline for emailing your thoughts to policy@ipo.gov.uk is in fact 4th
September 2014.
When a TV programme is transmitted via direct injection, who makes the act of communication to the public?
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html