Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/57655028/Case-law-Copiepresse-SAJ-and-Assucopie-versus-Google-Appeal-Summary
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 13:49:18
Document Index: 309679765

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§1', '§1', 'Art. 10', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinAxel BEELEN SAJ juriste@saj.be @Beelbax (Twitter) 8/6/2011
1. Facts Google News Through Google.news, Google has developped a specialised search engine based on the indexation of press articles published on the net. Google News is in fact a pure portal to the written press, Google reproducing and displaying as it saw ﬁt a signiﬁcant part of the text of the articles and this without having obtained the agreement of the right holders. Cache If you click on the «Cached» link of a web page, Google will show you the web page as it looked when it was last indexed. In order to index millions of pages every day, Google uses an «army» of indexation robots, called GoogleBot. Each time one of the robots visits a page, it recovers it and stores it on the Google servers. This version of the document is called the cached version. 2. Decision The judge has concluded that the activities of Google News (i.e. the reproduction and communication to the public of the titles of articles and the short extracts from articles) and the use of the Google «cache» (i.e. the registration accessible to the public of the so-called «cache» memory of articles and documents) breach Belgian copyright law. The Brussels judge also ordered the company Google to remove from Google News.be and from the «cache» of Google.be and Google.com, all the articles of the Belgian daily press, dated from the notiﬁcation of the order under penalty of a ﬁne of €25 000 per day of delay. Remember that we are still in the cessation order based on article 87 of the act of 30 June 1994 relating to copyright and related rights. Google can now decide to go in front of our Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) in a delay of three months after he will receive an ofﬁcial translation of the May decision. After the cessation procedure will begin the procedure to establish the damages occured by Google to the plaintiffs. Reproduction
The judge has concluded that there was consequently a material reproduction by ﬁxation of the work and communication of this to the public in accordance with article 1 of the Belgian act on copyright. Because there is a reproduction and availability to the public by Google of the copy of the original document stored in its own memory. That’s why the practice at Google consisting of saving works protected by copyright in its socalled «cached» memory and of allowing Internet users to access from the said memory itself (without referral to the original site) consequently constitutes an act of reproduction and communication to the public. Google News That it is apparent that by reproducing titles of articles and short extracts from articles on its site Google.News, Google reproduces and communicates works to the public protected by copyright.
Elements of the decision In its judicial decision of May 5th 2011, the Court of appeal of Brussels stated that the activities of Google News and the use of the Google «cache» notably violate the laws relating to copyright and related rights (1994). It was already stated in the ﬁrst decision of February 2007. Like in 2007, Google could not establish that it could maintain any exception as stipulated by the laws relating to copyright and related rights (1994). Exceptions rejected Exception of citation
Considering that pursuant to article 21 § 1st of the act of 30 June 1994 (as modiﬁed by the act of 22 May 2005): “Citations drawn from a lawfully published work, carried out with a view to critique, polemic, review, teaching or in scientiﬁc works, in accordance with honest use in the profession and insofar as justiﬁed in the aim pursued, do not damage copyright. The citations stated in the previous paragraph must mention the source and the name of the author unless that should prove impossible.» Rejected because articles cited were not in the framework of a coherent commentary of which they must only comprise an illustration. The review under this exception must also comprise other elements. Considering that Google.News is exclusively made up of extracts of newspaper articles groups by topic and that the reference is completeley automated, the exception of citation could not applied. Exception for reporting news
Considering that pursuant to article 22 §1 of the act of 30 June 1994 “When the work was lawfully published, the author cannot prohibit:
1ºthe reproduction to the public, with the aim of information, of short fragments of the works or plastic works in their entirety on the occasion of a report of news events”; The reproduction and communication to the public of the work on the occasion of the report of news events in accordance with §1st, 1º, must be justiﬁed by the aim for information pursued and the source, including the author’s name, must be stated unless this should prove impossible.”. Rejected because and as for citation, it appears that the protected works may not only constitute an accessory to the reporting and in fact the principal object of the reproduction. With regard to the authorisation of publishers of sites
Google maintained that if it should be considered that it makes copies of works protected by copyright and/or that it communicated these to the public, there was only realised by the explicit agreement, or at least the implicit agreement of the publishers of the sites concerned. Google insisted, moreover, on the fact that the publishers had the option to parameter their sites and to authorise some actions or not in the search engine; Google considered that insofar as the publishers did not implement these technical means, that they had, explicitly (insofar as they use ﬁle-robots on their sites) or at least implicitly, agreed to have the pages of their sites indexed and accessible via the cached links and on Google News.be. Rejected because Belgian copyright is not a right of opposition but a right for prior authorisation.That this means that the authorisation must be obtained in a certain way, prior to the intended use. Application of the fair use doctrine
Rejected because we were talking about Belgian articles done by Belgian journalists and Belgian publishers and at destination at Belgian readers. Art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights
Google considers that the Google.News service is legitimised by article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of expression; That it insists on the fact that the freedom of expression protects the different aspects of the communication process including the freedom to receive and communicate information. Google may consequently not limit itself to invoking article 10 of the European Convention to justify the incriminated activities.
Plaintiffs Copiepresse is a management company of rights of the Belgian French and German speaking daily press publishers authorised by Ministerial decrees to exercise its activities on the national territory; Its aim is to defend the copyright of is members (rights of publishers and acquired rights from journalists) and to supervise the use by third parties of the protected work of its members. SAJ is also management company of copyrights recognised by ministerial decree, including, for journalists and Assucopie for school, scientiﬁc and university authors.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulCase-law-Copiepresse, SAJ and Assucopie versus Google-Appeal-Summary by Axel Beelen0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionThis is a summary of the Google News.be appeal decision (Belgium) (in English). The decisions dates of May 5th 2011.This is a summary of the Google News.be appeal decision (Belgium) (in English). The decisions dates of May 5th 2011.Interests: Types, Business/Law, TechnologyRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Related20120216-CJEU-Sabam Versus Netlog-Press Release-ENGby Axel Beelen20111004 CJEU Premier League Cases Judgement ENGby Axel Beelen20120209-CJEU-Luksan Judgment-Text-ENGby Axel Beelen20120216-CJEU-Sabam Versus Netlog-Judgment of the Court-ENGby Axel Beelen20120703-CJEU-UsedSoft Judgment-ENGby Axel Beelen20111124-CJEU-Sabam v. Tiscali-ENGby Axel Beelen20060905-Google-Jugement par défaut contre Googleby Axel Beelen20120703-CJEU-UsedSoft Decision-Press Release-ENGby Axel BeelenCourt of Justice of the European Union Pressrelease, 24 November 2011by Boris Loukanov20120118-US-Supreme US Court-Golan Supreme Court Briefby Axel BeelenCP110102ENby The GuardianCopyright-Introduction of the Belgian SAJby Axel Beelen20110616-Decision of the CJEU in the Stichting de Thuiskopie's case (ENG) (C-462/09)by Axel Beelen20110616-Judgement in Case Stichting de Thuiskopie-Press releaseby Axel BeelenGoogle, Copyright and the Law :: Laurence Kayeby Minh VuPerfect 10 v. Amazon.com Incby Alo DuttAGENCE FRANCE PRESSE v. GOOGLE INC. - Document No. 26by Justia.comCara-Donlot-Image-Google-Earth.pdfby Kukuh Vivian Tri AdhitamaCalico_ Google's New Project to Solve Death - TIMEby Emerson DiegoIcse Timetable for 2008by ReshmabsrGAFE - What is It (Good for)by mrsdalgleishlary pageby Kiran GavaliFTC and Google Buzz Finalizes Settlementby Deepak Gupta (DG)WhiteJ Final KAby jdwhite55Scan to Google Drive and Docs with ccScanby Capture Components LLCDr. Willy Holmes-Spoelder 's GOOGLE PROFILE,, Updated 5th October 2011by Dr.Willy Holmes-SpoelderGoogle in China - A Case Studyby myschoolworkMcGraw.hill.Osborne.media.winning.results.with.Google.adwords.2nd.edition.dec.2008.eBook DDUby Alexandre NavariniSimilar to Case-law-Copiepresse, SAJ and Assucopie versus Google-Appeal-SummarySkip carousel20120216-CJEU-Sabam Versus Netlog-Press Release-ENG20111004 CJEU Premier League Cases Judgement ENG20120209-CJEU-Luksan Judgment-Text-ENG20120216-CJEU-Sabam Versus Netlog-Judgment of the Court-ENG20120703-CJEU-UsedSoft Judgment-ENG20111124-CJEU-Sabam v. Tiscali-ENG20060905-Google-Jugement par défaut contre Google20120703-CJEU-UsedSoft Decision-Press Release-ENGCourt of Justice of the European Union Pressrelease, 24 November 201120120118-US-Supreme US Court-Golan Supreme Court BriefCP110102ENCopyright-Introduction of the Belgian SAJ20110616-Decision of the CJEU in the Stichting de Thuiskopie's case (ENG) (C-462/09)20110616-Judgement in Case Stichting de Thuiskopie-Press releaseGoogle, Copyright and the Law :Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com IncAGENCE FRANCE PRESSE v. GOOGLE INC. - Document No. 26Cara-Donlot-Image-Google-Earth.pdfCalico_ Google's New Project to Solve Death - TIMEIcse Timetable for 2008GAFE - What is It (Good for)lary pageFTC and Google Buzz Finalizes SettlementWhiteJ Final KAScan to Google Drive and Docs with ccScanDr. Willy Holmes-Spoelder 's GOOGLE PROFILE,, Updated 5th October 2011Google in China - A Case StudyMcGraw.hill.Osborne.media.winning.results.with.Google.adwords.2nd.edition.dec.2008.eBook DDUGoogle Terms of Service Welcome to Google!google final reflection paper Case-law-Copiepresse, SAJ and Assucopie versus Google-Appeal-Summary