just a reference
17:27 | 14-09-2012 | Censorship, Copyright, Internet | 1 Comment
ссылки опять признали нарушением закона:
Yesterday, the Court of Amsterdam decided that publishing hyperlinks to copyrighted content is, under certain circumstances, a copyright infringement. It’s a pioneering decision, as it is the first time that a Dutch court rules in proceedings on the merits that hyperlinks can constitute a breach of copyright and formulates clear criteria in order to test if the circumstances of a case lead to an actual infringement.
In October 2011, website GeenStijl.nl published an article about leaked nude pictures of Dutch television presenter Britt Dekker. The pictures were shot for Playboy and were planned for the December edition of the magazine. The article on GeenStijl.nl contained a hyperlink to a zip file with the pictures, hosted by Australian file sharing website FileFactory.com. Sanoma, publisher of Playboy, ordered FileFactory.com to remove the zip file. Thereafter, GeenStijl.nl updated its article with a hyperlink to Imageshack, where the photo shoot could be viewed directly. Sanoma also ordered Imageshack to remove the pictures. Meanwhile, the pictures were spread across the internet and new links to the photo shoot kept popping up. Notwithstanding several letters in which Sanoma requested GeenStijl.nl to remove the article and the links, GeenStijl.nl published two more articles with hyperlinks to the pictures. Sanoma sued GeenStijl.nl for copyright infringement and for violation of Britt Dekkers portrait rights and privacy.
вот хороший комментарий:
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[1], 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.
Taking the three criteria and the circumstances of this specific case into account, the court concludes that GeenStijl.nl has infringed on Sanomas copyrights by publishing the URL to the leaked nude pictures of Britt Dekker.
что еще запретят? интернетообразующий тэг, как-никак.
via.
-
кхм… ↩
[…] и за ссылки расстреливать, ну да. хотя у них, конечно, другие […]