Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

An 'embed' link isn't a new infringement, says EU Court of Justice

No change, no new audience, no offence

The European Court of Justice has decided that even an unauthorised video can be embedded by a third party without creating a new infringement.

The case, reported by TorrentFreak, centres around a dispute by a water filtering company, BestWater International, and a couple of men who work as contractors for a competitor (their names are redacted in the linked decision in German).

They had found a BestWater video on YouTube and embedded it on a site (presumably because they disagreed with some statement it made), and BestWater had fired the sueballs. Now, the EU court has decided that the men didn't infringe the company's copyright.

Its reasoning is that since the video was already available on YouTube, and since the defendants merely embedded a link in a Web page – they didn't make any changes – the embedding didn't communicate the content to “a new public”. As a result, it didn't create a new infringement.

With thanks to TorrentFreak for its translation, the judgement reads: “The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication.”

The decision doesn't change the status of the original video, however. For example, had BestWater DCMA-d the video at YouTube, it would probably have been taken down, leaving the defendants with a blank embedding on their site. ®

Similar topics

Similar topics

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like