{"id":4375,"date":"2021-07-21T10:53:59","date_gmt":"2021-07-21T10:53:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/?p=4375"},"modified":"2021-07-21T10:53:59","modified_gmt":"2021-07-21T10:53:59","slug":"cjeu-issued-a-rulling-in-case-youtube-cyando","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/cjeu-issued-a-rulling-in-case-youtube-cyando\/","title":{"rendered":"CJEU issued a rulling in case YouTube\/Cyando"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>CJEU leaned toward the conclusion that neither YouTube nor Cyando performed acts of communication to the public (Art. 3(1) <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/ALL\/?uri=celex%3A32001L0029\">InfoSoc Directive<\/a>). The CJEU concluded also that if a platform does directly perform copyright-restricted acts, then it is ineligible for the hosting safe harbour. Only if the platforms meet the requirements of the safe harbour will they be exempt from (at least intermediary or secondary) liability for copyright infringing acts of their users.<\/p>\n<p>In its ruling, CJEU, following the approach it took in <a href=\"https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/liste.jsf?num=C-160\/15\">GS Media<\/a>, had put a stronger focus on fundamental rights, by providing that Art. 3(1) requires a fair balance between the interests and fundamental rights of copyright holders, users and the general interest, in particular their freedom of expression and information (Art. 11 of <a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/info\/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights\/your-rights-eu\/eu-charter-fundamental-rights_en\">EU Charter of Fundamental Rights<\/a>). CJEU even seems to be moving closer to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which reiterates the particular importance of the internet for the freedom of expression and information enshrined in Art. 10(1) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/documents\/convention_eng.pdf\">European Convention of Human Rights<\/a> (ECHR).<\/p>\n<p>In this light, it will be interesting to follow the decision of the ECJ in Case C-401\/19, which otherwise concerns Article 17 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/dir\/2019\/790\/oj\">DSM Directive<\/a>, and in which the Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard \u00d8e issued its <a href=\"https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=244201&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=2392336\">Opinion<\/a> on 15th of July, 2021.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com\/2021\/07\/01\/youtube-cyando-an-important-ruling-for-platform-liability-part-1\/\">Kluwer<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/ipkitten.blogspot.com\/2021\/06\/cjeu-rules-on-platform-liability-under.html\">IPKat<\/a> are also reporting on this topic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CJEU leaned toward the conclusion that neither YouTube nor Cyando performed acts of communication to the public (Art. 3(1) InfoSoc Directive). The CJEU concluded also that if a platform does directly perform copyright-restricted acts, then it is ineligible for the hosting safe harbour. Only if the platforms meet the requirements of the safe harbour will [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3983,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4375"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4375\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4376,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4375\/revisions\/4376"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3983"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}