Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö "Unlawful Content on YouTube " : Decision of the Supreme Court of Austria (Oberster Gerichtshof) 17 September 2021 – Case No. 4 Ob/132/21x
Julkaistu Springer, Heidelberg : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 53(9)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Art & Allposters International BV v. Stichting Pictoright Copyright Act, Sec. 18(a)(1); Directive 2001/29/EC Arts. 3(1), 14. 1. Although platform operators play an indispensable role in making content posted by users accessible, this alone is not sufficient to assume communication to the public. 2. Rather, other criteria, in particular that of the intentionality of the actions of such an operator, must be taken into account, i.e. it must be examined whether the operator acts “in full knowledge of the consequences of its conduct” in order to provide its customers with access to a protected work. 3. The mere fact that the operator has general knowledge of the infringing availability of protected content on its platform is not sufficient to assume that it acts with the aim of providing internet users with access to this content. 4. The situation is different, however, where the operator, despite having been warned by the rightholder that protected content is being communicated illegally to the public via its platform, refrains from expeditiously taking the measures necessary to make that content inaccessible. 5. The fact that the platform operator acts with the intention of making a profit is irrelevant. 6. The operation of a video platform falls within the scope of Art. 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC (exemption from liability), provided that the operator does not play an active role which gives it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform. 7. It is only excluded from this exemption if it has knowledge of the specific illegal acts committed by its users relating to protected content that was uploaded to its platform. The same criteria as for the examination of communication to the public are applicable.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 53(9)
*000 ab a ar
*00117188
*008 s2022||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"Unlawful Content on YouTube " :$bDecision of the Supreme Court of Austria (Oberster Gerichtshof) 17 September 2021 – Case No. 4 Ob/132/21x /
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2022.
*300 $as. 1403–1408
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v53(9)
*520 $aArt & Allposters International BV v. Stichting Pictoright Copyright Act, Sec. 18(a)(1); Directive 2001/29/EC Arts. 3(1), 14. 1. Although platform operators play an indispensable role in making content posted by users accessible, this alone is not sufficient to assume communication to the public. 2. Rather, other criteria, in particular that of the intentionality of the actions of such an operator, must be taken into account, i.e. it must be examined whether the operator acts “in full knowledge of the consequences of its conduct” in order to provide its customers with access to a protected work. 3. The mere fact that the operator has general knowledge of the infringing availability of protected content on its platform is not sufficient to assume that it acts with the aim of providing internet users with access to this content. 4. The situation is different, however, where the operator, despite having been warned by the rightholder that protected content is being communicated illegally to the public via its platform, refrains from expeditiously taking the measures necessary to make that content inaccessible. 5. The fact that the platform operator acts with the intention of making a profit is irrelevant. 6. The operation of a video platform falls within the scope of Art. 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC (exemption from liability), provided that the operator does not play an active role which gives it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform. 7. It is only excluded from this exemption if it has knowledge of the specific illegal acts committed by its users relating to protected content that was uploaded to its platform. The same criteria as for the examination of communication to the public are applicable.
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*650 7$atuomiot$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3192$2yso/fin
*650 7$aYouTube $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p21062$2yso/fin
*651 7$aItävalta$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105294
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v53(9)
*852 $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.