Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EU Right of Communication to the Public: From Liability to Responsibility

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The right of communication to the public has been one of the most hotly contested EU copyright issues. In the latest phase of the right’s development, the additions of Art. 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive together with the YouTube case and the Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services have solidified the shift towards a responsibility-based approach whereby a private ordering mechanism has been employed for entities to regulate their behaviour to avoid liability. This shift towards the responsibility-based approach challenges the traditional understanding of “communication to the public” arising from Art. 3 of the Information Society Directive and its resulting case law. Consequently, this article will assess the shift in approach and the resultant challenges in employing it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-135/23 Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) v. GL [2024], Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, ECLI:EU:C:2024:151, para. 1. Also see Torremans arguing that there is no universal approval of the CJEU’s case law concerning the right of communication to the public – Torremans (2022), p. 2.

  2. Case C-306/05 Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v. Rafael Hoteles SA [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:764.

  3. Case C-466/12 Nils Svensson and others v. Retriever Sverige AB [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:76.

  4. Case C-160/15 GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:644.

  5. Case C-610/15 Stichting Brein v. Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:456.

  6. Case C-527/15 Stichting Brein v. Jack Frekerik Wullems (also trading under the name Filmspeler) [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:300.

  7. Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ L 130/92.

  8. Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18 Frank Peterson v. Google LLC, YouTube Inc, YouTube LLC and Google Germany GmbH and Elsevier Inc v. Cyando AG [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:503.

  9. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) [2022] OJ L 277/1.

  10. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L 167/10.

  11. See Makeen (2000); Depreeuw (2014); Koo (2019); Marusic (2023).

  12. See Rafael Hoteles [2006]; Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and others v. QC Leisure and others and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:631; Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09 Airfield NV and another v. Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) and Airfield NV v. Agicoa Belgium BVBA [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:648; Case C-135/10 Societa Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v. Marco del Corso [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:140; Case C-162/10 Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v. Ireland [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:141; Case C-607/11 ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v. TVCatchup Ltd [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:147.

  13. See Svensson [2014], GS Media [2016], Filmspeler [2017], and Ziggo [2017].

  14. See DSMD and YouTube [2021].

  15. “Communication” was defined as an intervention with full knowledge of the consequences to give access to a protected work – Rafael Hoteles [2006], para. 42.

  16. “Public” was defined as a fairly large and indeterminate number of potential recipients – Case C-89/04 Mediakabel BV v. Commissariaat voor de Media [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:348, para. 30; Case C-192/04 Lagardere Active Broadcast v. Societe pour la perception de la remuneration equitable (SPRE), Gesellschaft zur Verwerung von Leistungsschutrechten mbH (GVL) [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:475, para. 31; Rafael Hoteles [2006], para. 37.

  17. “New public” was defined as an audience different from the one targeted by the original act of communication – Rafael Hoteles [2006], para. 40. It must be noted that “new public” remains a controversial element of the right of communication to the public – see Rosati (2020a), p. 802; Karapapa (2017), p. 63; Hugenholtz and Van Velze (2016).

  18. The CJEU attempted to reduce the consequences of the “new public” criterion by introducing a caveat whereby the “new public” criterion is inapplicable in situations where the subsequent communication is made by a different technical means – Case C-607/11 ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v. TVCatchup Ltd [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:147, para. 26.

  19. It can be argued that the exhaustion of the right of communication to the public via the new public criterion creates an implied licence situation. See Rosati (2019), p. 101; Mysoor (2018), 666–683. Also see Case C-392/19 VG Bild-Kunst v. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:181, paras. 52 and 55, where the CJEU attempted to limit the reach of the exhaustion problem by holding that a hyperlink that circumvents a technological protection measure to provide access to a work by way of framing will amount to an act of communication to the public.

  20. GS Media [2016], paras. 47–49.

  21. Strowel in Hugenholtz (2018), p. 239; Peguera (2018), pp. 2 and 12; Ohly (2018), p. 670; Dimita (2017), p. 157; Koo (2019), pp. 116–117; Ginsburg (2017).

  22. Pappalardo (2023), pp. 2–4.

  23. Hugenholtz and Van Velze argued that the legislature should step in to develop appropriate harmonised rules for the right of communication to the public instead of the CJEU – Hugenholtz and Van Velze (2016), pp. 814–815.

  24. Geiger and Jütte (2021), pp. 630–631.

  25. Rendas (2017), p. 14.

  26. Angelopoulos (2017), pp. 65–66; Clark and Dickenson (2017), p. 277; Savola (2017), p. 143; Midelieva (2017), p. 487; Lim Saw (2018), p. 562; Nordemann (2018), p. 745; Ginsburg (2017) 3. Also note AG Szpunar in his Opinion on Ziggo stated that failing to expand the scope of the communication to the public right to address torrent files would undermine the objective of harmonising EU copyright law, given the divergent approaches to secondary liability at the domestic level – Case C-610/15 Stichting Brein v. Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV [2017] Opinion of AG Szpunar ECLI:EU:C:2017:99, para. 3.

  27. For general discussion on the potential issues with Art. 17 see Burri and Zihlmann (2020), pp. 54–65.

  28. The basis for attribution of liability in Art. 17 seems to be akin to the US server test set out by the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 – Perfect 10 v. Google Inc (2006) 416 F Supp 2d 828, 839–840 and 843–844.

  29. See Recitals 61–62 of the DSMD, Rosati (2021), pp. 301–359; Husovec and Quintais (2021), p. 326.

  30. IFPI, IFPI Digital Music Report 2015: Charting the Path to Sustainable Growth (2015), pp. 22–23, Rosati (2021) pp. 314–315; Allgrove and Gordon (2020), pp. 525–526.

  31. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) [2000] OJ L 178/1.

  32. It has been argued that online platforms avoided liability on the basis that they were seen as gatekeepers rather than “agents who normative decisions matter”, and moreover that it was too burdensome to hold them accountable for the acts of their users. See Kraakman (1986); Zittrain (2005–2006); Thompson (2016), p. 787; Bridy (2020), p. 326; Senftleben and Angelopoulos (2020), p. 6.

  33. Husovec and Quintais (2021), pp. 336–337.

  34. Gabison and Buiten (2020), pp. 248–250; Shikhiashvili (2019) 24(1), p. 128; Quintais et al (2023), p. 22; Allgrove and Gordon in Aplin (2020), p. 506.

  35. Note, right holders cannot be for forced into authorising works under Art. 17(2) – Recital 61 DSMD, ALAI, First Opinion on certain aspects of the implementation of Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market (2020) and p.2; and Husovec and Quintais (2021), p. 345. Furthermore, the operation of Art. 17(2) will inevitably mean cooperation with collective management organisations.

  36. Angelopoulos argued that the “best efforts” mechanism creates a duty of care where online platforms do not obtain a licence – Angelopoulos in Rosati (2023), p. 206.

  37. The Polish government sought to annul Art. 17(4) on the basis that it would ultimately require general monitoring, which would conflict with the fundamental right of freedom of expression and information – Case C-401/19 Republic of Poland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2022] ECLI:EU:C:2022:297, paras. 24 and 72–97.

  38. Senftleben and Angelopoulos (2020), pp. 16–23.

  39. Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:771, paras. 45–53.

  40. Case C-360/10 SABAM v. Netlog [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:85, paras. 35–39 and 45–51.

  41. Case C-484/14 Tobias McFaddden v. Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:689, para. 87.

  42. Case C-18/18 Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:821, paras. 37 and 41–46.

  43. Case C-324/09 L’Oreal SA and others v. eBay International AG and others [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:474, paras. 139–144.

  44. Senftleben and Angelopoulos (2020), p. 23.

  45. Senftleben and Angelopoulos (2020), p. 28; Geiger and Jütte (2021), pp. 630–631; ALAI (2020), p. 3.

  46. Geiger and Jütte (2021), p. 629.

  47. For general discussion on the challenges of using automated filtering tools see Marsoof et al (2022); Romero Moreno (2020), pp. 157–161.

  48. Kraakman (1986), p. 101.

  49. YouTube [2021], para. 60. For the purposes of this article, the issues pertaining to YouTube will be focused on. It is arguable that YouTube and Uploaded are technically different and should not have been treated in the same manner.

  50. See ALAI, Opinion in respect of some of the question from the Federal Court of Justice of Germany for preliminary ruling by the CJEU, Case C-682/18 (YouTube) (2019).

  51. Where an act of communication is done “for profit”, there is a presumption of knowledge about the legitimacy of the work being communicated. See GS Media [2016], paras. 47–51.

  52. Ohly stated that it was unclear how the threshold for the knowledge requirement in relation to platforms involved with both infringing and non-infringing would be addressed – Ohly (2018), p. 667.

  53. YouTube [2021], para. 84.

  54. Ibid, para. 85.

  55. The considerations adopted by the CJEU in dismissing liability for YouTube may prove useful in interpreting and applying Art. 17(4)(b) and (c) of the DSMD.

  56. YouTube [2021], para. 84.

  57. See Recital 28 Digital Services Act. Also see Tate (2021), p. 349.

  58. For more commentary on the Digital Services Act see van Hoboken et al (2023). Also see Arts. 16, 20, 23, 34 and 35 DSA.

  59. Quintais et al describe the difference between the Digital Services Act and Art. 17 of the DSMD as the regulation “of platforms” (Art. 17 DSMD) and regulation “by platforms” (Digital Services Act) – Quintais et al (2023), p. 3.

  60. Ibid, pp. 2–3.

  61. Hanuz argued that this shift towards holding online platforms liable for providing indirect access to works was facilitated by the CJEU adopting the perspective of an end user in determining who should be held responsible for acts of communication to the public and in so doing the technical nature of a communication is disregarded. In other words, the online platform is held responsible because it appears that it is the platform itself that make the communication to the public from the viewpoint of the average end user – Hanuz (2020) 11(3), pp. 320–321. Also see Wischmeyer in Susi (2019), pp. 150–153; Thompson (2016), p. 819.

  62. Angelopoulos argued that the conflation is not necessarily problematic because not all countries have a distinction between primary and secondary liability – Angelopoulos in Rosati (2023), p. 212.

  63. The EU approach in this regard reflects the strategy of claimants in pursuing secondary liability claims against entities that possess control over chokepoints that can stop infringement effectively and at a lower cost – Dinwoodie in Dinwoodie (2017), pp. 7 and 16–17. Also see Marsoof (2019), p. 5.

  64. Giblin and Ginsburg argued that these are the wrong issues to focus on. Instead, emphasis should be placed on whether the act done should be considered infringement and moreover, the nature of the technology and the marketplace – Giblin and Ginsburg in Pistorius (2018), pp. 149–151. For discussion on who is a suitable defendant see Riordan (2016), pp. 54–59; Marsoof (2019), p. 106; Rosati (2017), p. 1242.

  65. Ziggo [2017], para. 36.

  66. See Angelopoulos (2017); Pappalardo (2023), chap. 2.

  67. See Art. 17(4) of the DSMD and YouTube [2021], paras. 84–85 and 100–102.

  68. See Recitals 61, 62 and 66.

  69. See Recitals 1–4, 75, 76 and 79.

  70. Pappalardo (2023), p. 57.

  71. It can be argued that this is a departure from the traditional tort law approach that has been employed in copyright law where it is necessary to establish a causal link between the infringer and the infringement – see Pappalardo (2023), pp. 52–53. Also see, Rosati (2020b), p. 653.

  72. Foong argued that fault now underlies the approach to communication to the public in the EU. However, the EU right of communication to the public should more closely analyse the act in question rather than looking to culpability/fault – Foong (2020), pp. 234 and 237.

  73. Despite all of the recent developments concerning the right of communication to the public, there are still a number of cases concerning traditional broadcasting technologies – Case C-290/21 AKM (Fourniture de bouquets satellitaires en Autriche) [2023] ECLI:EU:C:2023:424, Grand Production v. GO4YU [2022] Opinion of AG Szpunar, Cases C-775-21 and C-826/21 Blue Air Aviation SA v. UCMR – ADA Asociaţia pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor and Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR) v. Societatea Natională de Transport Feroviar de Călători (SNTFC) “CFR Călători” SA [2023] ECLI:EU:C:2023:307, Case C-426/21 Ocilion IPTV Technologies GmbH v. Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH and Puls 4 TV TV GmbH & Co KG [2023] ECLI:EU:C:2022:564, Case C-723/22 Citadines Betriebs GmbH v. MPLC Deutschland GmbH and GEMA v. GL [2024] Opinion of AG Szpunar.

  74. Depreeuw (2014), para. 501; Dreier (1993), p. 193. Also see Commission, Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (Green Paper COM (95) 382 final, 1995), p. 56.

  75. See Recitals 64–65 of the DSMD and Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Guidance on Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2021) 288 final, 2021), p. 2. For a different perspective see ALAI, Second Opinion on certain aspects of the implementation of Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market (2020), p. 3.

  76. In Reha Training the CJEU declared that the concept of “communication to the public” under the InfoSoc Directive and the Rental and Lending Rights Directive must have the same meaning unless the legislature expressed a different intention. See Case C-117/15 Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v. Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:379, paras. 29–34 and affirmed in Case C-641/15 Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v. Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:131, para. 19. Also see Koo (2019), pp. 58–59, where it was argued that Reha Training harmonised the term “communication to the public” across all the existing Directives including – Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and related rights to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission [1993] OJ L 248/15, Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version) [2006] OL J 376/28 and Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [1996] OJ L 77/20.

  77. It is arguable that YouTube and Uploaded are technically different and should not have been treated in the same manner because Uploaded’s users are not provided with the opportunity to share works using the Uploaded platform directly.

  78. See Recital 62 of the DSMD.

  79. Ibid, paras. 2, 18, 22–23.

  80. See GEMA v. GL [2024] Opinion of AG Szpunar.

  81. YouTube [2021], para. 84.

  82. Ibid, paras. 92–94.

  83. Commission, Guidance on Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2021) COM(2021) 288 final, p. 12.

  84. Ibid, pp. 13–14. Also see YouTube [2021], para. 83 and Recital 71 DSMD.

  85. See Commission (2021), pp. 12–13, 22 and 25.

  86. See Case C-355/12 Nintendo Co Ltd and others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:25.

  87. Samuelson (2020), p. 219.

  88. Rosati (2019), pp. 200–201.

  89. Bridy (2020), pp. 326–328.

  90. Gabison and Buiten (2020), p. 252; Riordan (2016), p. 40; Marsoof (2019), pp. 2–6.

  91. Marsoof (2019), pp. 7–8.

  92. It should also be noted that online platforms may not be able to rely on the licensing mechanism of Art. 17(1) alone and therefore, will have to rely on a combination of licensing and diligent proactive copyright management including filtering tools – Senftleben (2020), pp. 305–307.

  93. Hesmondhalgh (2021); Yoong Hon (2023); Haampland et al (2022); Sisario (2021).

  94. For issues on licensing see Senftleben (2019), pp. 481–482; Husovec and Quintais (2021), pp. 343–345; Trapova (2020), pp. 278–279.

  95. Frosio (2020), p. 721. Also see Rocha (2020), p. 1201.

  96. Krokida (2022a), p. 69

  97. Foong argued that persons tend to associate infringing behaviour with bad behaviour and as such ignore the value of competitive behaviours that should be encouraged – Foong (2020), pp. 236–237. Also see Kraakman (1986), p. 75.

  98. Recital 61 DSMD and Commission (2021), p. 2 and Husovec and Quintais (2021), p. 342.

  99. Kraakman argued that even the most conservative gatekeepers will face legal risks and therefore their over or under monitoring will be contingent on the cost efficiency of avoiding legal liability – Kraakman (1986), p. 76. Also see Krokida (2022b), pp. 150–152.

  100. Senftleben (2019), p. 481.

References

  • Allgrove B, Gordon J (2020) Enforcement in a digital context: intermediary liability. In: Aplin T (ed) Research handbook on intellectual property and digital technologies. Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelopoulos C (2017) European intermediary liability in copyright: a tort-based analysis. Kluwer Law International BV

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelopoulos C (2023) Primary and accessory liability in EU copyright law. In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridy A (2020) The price of closing the “value gap”: how the music industry hacked EU copyright reform. V J Ent Tech Law 22:323

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M, Zihlmann Z (2020) Intermediaries’ liability in light of the recent EU copyright reform. Indian J Intell Prop L 11:35

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark B, Dickenson J (2017) Theseus and the labyrinth? An overview of “communication to the public” under EU copyright law: after Reha Training and GS Media: where are we now and where do we go from here? EIPR 39(5):265

    Google Scholar 

  • Depreeuw S (2014) The variable scope of the exclusive economic rights in copyright. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimita D (2017) The WIPO right of making available. In: Torremans P (ed) Research handbook on copyright law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinwoodie G (2017) A comparative analysis of the secondary liability of online service providers. In: Dinwoodie G (ed) Secondary liability of internet service providers. Springer International

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T (1993) Copyright digitized: philosophical impacts and practical implications for information exchange in digital networks. In WIPO worldwide symposium on the impact of digital technology on copyright and neighbouring rights.

  • Foong C (2020) Volition and the “new public”: a convergence of US and EU judicial approaches to communication to the public. EIPR 42(4):230

    Google Scholar 

  • Frosio G (2020) Reforming the C-DSM reform: a user-based copyright theory for commonplace creativity. IIC 51(6):709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00931-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabison G, Buiten M (2020) Platform liability in copyright enforcement. Colum Sci Technol Law Rev 21(2):237

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Jütte B (2021) Towards a virtuous legal framework for content moderation by digital platforms in the EU? The Commission’s guidance on article 17 CDSM Directive in light of the YouTube/Cyando judgment and the AG’s Opinion in C-401/19. EIPR 43(10):625

    Google Scholar 

  • Giblin R, Ginsburg J (2018) Asking the right questions in copyright cases: lessons from Aereo and its international bretheren. In: Pistorius T (ed) Intellectual property perspectives on the regulation of new technologies. Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg J (2017) The Court of Justice of the European Union creates an EU law of liability for facilitation of copyright infringement: observations on Brein v. Filmspeler [C-527/15] (2017) and Brein v. Ziggo [C-610/15]. Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 572 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024302. Accessed 3 Aug 2018

  • Hanuz B (2020) Direct copyright liability as regulation of hosting platforms for the copyright-infringing content uploaded by their users: quo vadis? J Intell Prop Inform Tech Electron Commun Law 11(3):315

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesmondhalgh D (2021) Is music streaming bad for musicians? Problems of evidence and argument. New Media Soc 23(12):3593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz PB, Van Velze S (2016) Communication to a new public? Three reasons why EU copyright law can do without a “new public.” IIC 47(7):797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0512-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husovec M, Quintais JP (2021) How to license article 17? Exploring the implementation options for the new EU rules on content-sharing platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. GRUR 70(4):325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karapapa S (2017) The requirement for a “new public” in EU copyright law. EL Rev 42(1):63

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo J (2019) The right of communication to the public in EU copyright law. Hart Publishing, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kraakman R (1986) Gatekeepers: the anatomy of a third-party enforcement strategy. JL Econ Org 2:53

    Google Scholar 

  • Krokida Z (2022) Supervising the gatekeepers? An alternative EU framework for the liability of internet intermediaries’ for copyright infringement. IPQ 2:62

    Google Scholar 

  • Krokida Z (2022b) Internet service provider liability for copyright and trade mark infringement. Hart Publishing

  • Lim Saw C (2018) Linking on the internet and copyright liability: a clarion call for doctrinal clarity and legal certainty’. IIC 49(5):36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0709-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makeen M (2000) Copyright in a global information society: the scope of copyright protection under international, US, UK and French law. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsoof A (2019) Internet intermediaries and trade mark rights. Routledge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marsoof A, Luco A, Tan H, Joty S (2022) Content-filtering AI systems-limitations, challenges and regulatory approaches. Inform Commun Technol Law 1:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Marusic B (2023) The autonomous legal concept of communication to the public: interpretation in EU copyright law. Edward Elgar

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Midelieva L (2017) Rethinking hyperlinking: addressing hyperlinks to unauthorized content in copyright law and policy. EIPR 39(8):479

    Google Scholar 

  • Mysoor P (2018) Exhaustion, non-exhaustion and implied licence. IIC 49(6):656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0721-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordemann JB (2018) Recent CJEU case law on communication to the public and its application in Germany: a new EU concept of liability. JIPLP 13(9):744

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A (2018) The broad concept of “communication to the public” in recent CJEU judgments and the liability of intermediaries: primary, secondary or unitary liability. JIPLP 13(8):664

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappalardo K (2023) A new framework for intermediary liability: copyright, causation and control on the internet. Edward Elgar

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peguera M (2018) Hyperlinking under the lens of the revamped right of communication to the public. CLSR 1:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintais JP, De Gregorio G, Magalães M (2023) How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: exploring the power of private ordering and its implications. Comput Law Secur Rev 48:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendas T (2017) How Playboy photos compromised EU copyright law: the GS Media judgment. J Internet Law 11:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan J (2016) The liability of internet intermediaries. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha M (2020) The brewing battle: copyright vs linking. Berkeley Tech Law J 35(4):1179–1182

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero Moreno F (2020) ‘Upload filters’ and human rights: implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 34(2):153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2017) GS Media and its implications for the construction of the right of communication to the public within EU copyright architecture. Common Mark L Rev 54(4):1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2019) Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2020) When does a communication to the public under EU copyright law need to be a “new public”?’. EL Rev 45(6):802

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2020b) Does the duration of storage matter? Live streaming providers as “online content sharing service providers” under Directive 2019/790. EIPR 42(10):652 [Rosati 2]

  • Rosati E (2021) Copyright in the digital single market: article-by-article commentary to the provisions of Directive 2019/790. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (2020) Regulating technology through copyright law: a comparative perspective. EIPR 42(4):214

    Google Scholar 

  • Savola P (2017) EU copyright liability for internet linking. JIPITEC 8:139

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2019) Bermuda Triangle: licensing, filtering and privileging user-generated content under the new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. EIPR 41(8):480

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2020) Institutionalized algorithmic enforcement – the pros and cons of the EU approach to UGC platform liability. FIU Law Rev 14(2):299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M, Angelopoulos C (2020) The odyssey of the prohibition on general monitoring obligations on the way to the Digital Services Act: between article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Accessed 16 June 2023

  • Shikhiashvili L (2019) The same problem, different outcome: online copyright infringement and intermediary liability under US and EU laws. Intell Prop Tech Law J 24(1):125

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisario B (2021) Musicians say streaming doesn’t pay. can the industry change. New York Times (9 May 2021) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/arts/music/streaming-music-payments.html. Accessed 7 Oct 2023

  • Strowel A (2018) Reconstructing the reproduction and communication to the public rights: how to align copyright with its fundamentals. In: Hugenholtz PB (ed) Copyright reconstructed: rethinking copyright’s economic rights in a time of highly dynamic and technological and economic change. Kluwer Law International BV

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate M (2021) The EU Copyright Directive and the United States Copyright Act: why an established approach is better suited to a new digital reality. Hous J Int Law 43(2):307

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M (2016) Beyond gatekeeping: the normative responsibility of internet intermediaries. Vand J Ent Tech Law 18(4):783

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans P (2022) The TuneIn case or communication to the public in the UK after Brexit: the status quo with targeting as a governance tool. Intl J Legal Discourse 1:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapova A (2020) Reviving collective management: will CMOs become the true mediators they ought to be in the digital single market? EIPR 42(5):272

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoboken J, Quintais JP, Appelman N, Fahy R, Buri I, Straub M (2023) Putting the DSA into practice. Verfassungsbooks

    Google Scholar 

  • Wischmeyer T (2019) The role and practices of online stakeholders. In: Susi M (ed) Human rights, digital society and the law. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoong Hon L (2023) The trouble with music streaming: should regulators be concerned? EIPR 45(8):454

    Google Scholar 

  • Zittrain J (2005–2006) A history of online gatekeeping. Harv JL & Tech 19:253

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

    Justin Koo

Authors
  1. Justin Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Koo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koo, J. The EU Right of Communication to the Public: From Liability to Responsibility. IIC (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01477-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01477-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation