• Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2009, C-5/08, Infopaq I

Infopaq operates a media monitoring and analysis business, which consists primarily in drawing up summaries of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals. The articles are selected on the basis of certain subject criteria agreed with customers and the selection is made by means of a ‘data capture process’. The summaries are sent to customers by email. DDF is a professional association of Danish daily newspaper publishers, whose function is inter alia to assist its members with copyright issues. In 2005 DDF became aware that Infopaq was scanning newspaper articles for commercial purposes without authorisation from the relevant rightholders. Taking the view that such consent was necessary for processing articles using the process in question, DDF complained to Infopaq about this procedure. The data capture process comprises the five phases which, according to DDF, lead to four acts of reproduction of newspaper articles. First, the relevant publications are registered manually by Infopaq employees in an electronic registration database. Secondly, once the spines are cut off the publications so that all the pages consist of loose sheets, the publications are scanned. The section to be scanned is selected from the registration database before the publication is put into the scanner. Scanning allows a TIFF (‘Tagged Image File Format’) file to be created for each page of the publication. When scanning is completed, the TIFF file is transferred to an OCR (‘Optical Character Recognition’) server. Thirdly, the OCR server translates the TIFF file into data that can be processed digitally. During that process, the image of each letter is translated into a character code which tells the computer what type of letter it is. For instance, the image of the letters ‘TDC’ is translated into something the computer can treat as the letters ‘TDC’ and put in a text format which can be recognised by the computer’s system. These data are saved as a text file which can be understood by any text processing program. The OCR process is completed by deleting the TIFF file. Fourthly, the text file is processed to find a search word defined beforehand. Each time a match for a search word is found, data is generated giving the publication, section and page number on which the match was found, together with a value expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100 indicating how far into the text it is to be found, in order to make it easier to read the article. Also in order to make it easier to find the search word when reading the article, the five words which come before and after the search word are captured (‘extract of 11 words’). At the end of the process the text file is deleted. Fifthly, at the end of the data capture process a cover sheet is printed out in respect of all the pages where the relevant search word was found. Infopaq disputed the claim that the procedure required consent from the rightholders and brought an action against DDF before the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), claiming that DDF should be ordered to acknowledge that Infopaq is entitled in Denmark to apply the abovementioned procedure without the consent of DDF or of its members. After the Østre Landsret dismissed that action, Infopaq brought an appeal before the Højesteret (the referring court).

The national court asks, essentially, whether the concept of ‘reproduction in part’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/29 is to be interpreted as meaning that it encompasses the storing and subsequent printing out on paper of a text extract consisting of 11 words. Also, the referring court asks, essentially, whether acts of reproduction occurring during a data capture process, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, whether that process may be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders, since it is used to draw up summaries of newspaper articles and consists of scanning those articles in their entirety to produce a digital file, storing an extract of 11 words and then printing out that extract.

The Court concluded that an act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of 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, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination. The Court ruled that the act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

• Order of the Court of 17 January 2012, C-302/10, Infopaq II

Infopaq operates a media monitoring and analysis business, which consists primarily in drawing up summaries of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals. The articles are selected on the basis of certain subject criteria agreed with customers and the selection is made by means of a ‘data capture process’. The summaries are sent to customers by email. DDF is a professional association of Danish daily newspaper publishers, whose function is inter alia to assist its members with copyright issues. In 2005 DDF became aware that Infopaq was scanning newspaper articles for commercial purposes without authorisation from the relevant rightholders. Taking the view that such consent was necessary for processing articles using the process in question, DDF complained to Infopaq about this procedure. The data capture process comprises the five phases which, according to DDF, lead to four acts of reproduction of newspaper articles. First, the relevant publications are registered manually by Infopaq employees in an electronic registration database. Secondly, once the spines are cut off the publications so that all the pages consist of loose sheets, the publications are scanned. The section to be scanned is selected from the registration database before the publication is put into the scanner. Scanning allows a TIFF (‘Tagged Image File Format’) file to be created for each page of the publication. When scanning is completed, the TIFF file is transferred to an OCR (‘Optical Character Recognition’) server. Thirdly, the OCR server translates the TIFF file into data that can be processed digitally. During that process, the image of each letter is translated into a character code which tells the computer what type of letter it is. For instance, the image of the letters ‘TDC’ is translated into something the computer can treat as the letters ‘TDC’ and put in a text format which can be recognised by the computer’s system. These data are saved as a text file which can be understood by any text processing program. The OCR process is completed by deleting the TIFF file. Fourthly, the text file is processed to find a search word defined beforehand. Each time a match for a search word is found, data is generated giving the publication, section and page number on which the match was found, together with a value expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100 indicating how far into the text it is to be found, in order to make it easier to read the article. Also in order to make it easier to find the search word when reading the article, the five words which come before and after the search word are captured (‘extract of 11 words’). At the end of the process the text file is deleted. Fifthly, at the end of the data capture process a cover sheet is printed out in respect of all the pages where the relevant search word was found. Infopaq disputed the claim that the procedure required consent from the rightholders and brought an action against DDF before the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), claiming that DDF should be ordered to acknowledge that Infopaq is entitled in Denmark to apply the abovementioned procedure without the consent of DDF or of its members. After the Østre Landsret dismissed that action, Infopaq brought an appeal before the Højesteret (the referring court).

The referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of reproduction carried out during a data capture process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, fulfil the condition that those acts must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process. In that regard, the referring court asks in particular whether the stage of the technological process at which those acts took place and the fact that that technological process involves human intervention should be taken into account. Furthermore, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a data capture process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, fulfil the condition that the acts of reproduction must pursue a sole purpose, namely to enable either the transmission of a protected work or a protected subject-matter in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or the lawful use of such a work or such a subject-matter. Also, it asks whether the temporary acts of reproduction carried out during a data capture process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, fulfil the condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 that those acts must not have independent economic significance. Finally, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a data capture process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, fulfil the condition that those acts must neither conflict with the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

The Court concluded that Article 5(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, fulfil the condition that those acts must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, notwithstanding the fact that they initiate and terminate that process and involve human intervention, fulfil the condition that those acts of reproduction must pursue a sole purpose, namely to enable the lawful use of a protected work or a protected subject-matter, fulfil the condition that those acts must not have an independent economic significance provided, first, that the implementation of those acts does not enable the generation of an additional profit going beyond that derived from the lawful use of the protected work and, secondly, that the acts of temporary reproduction do not lead to a modification of that work. According to the Court, Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, if they fulfil all the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, must be regarded as fulfilling the condition that the acts of reproduction may not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

• Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2014, C-360/13, Newspaper Licensing Agency

The PRCA is an association of public relations professionals. Those professionals use the media monitoring service offered by the Meltwater group of companies (‘Meltwater’), which makes available to them, online, monitoring reports on press articles published on the internet, those reports being compiled on the basis of key words provided by the customers. The NLA is a body set up by the publishers of newspapers in the United Kingdom for the purpose of providing collective licensing of newspaper content. The NLA took the view that Meltwater and its customers were required to obtain authorisation from the copyright holders for, respectively, providing and receiving the media monitoring service. Meltwater agreed to enter into a web database licence. The PRCA, however, maintained that the online receipt of the monitoring reports by Meltwater’s customers not require a licence. Seised of the dispute, the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) held that the members of the PRCA were required to obtain a licence or consent from the NLA in order to receive Meltwater’s service. The PRCA brought an appeal against that decision before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom asks, in essence, whether Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the on-screen copies and the cached copies made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, and, if so, whether those copies may be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

The Court concluded that Article 5 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

Judgment of 11 Sep 2014, C-117/13 (Ulmer)

Pursuant to the Copyright Directive1 , authors have the exclusive right to authorise or to prohibit the reproduction and the communication to the public of their works. However, the directive allows Member States to provide for specific exceptions or limitations to that right. This option exists notably for publically accessible libraries which, for the purpose of research or private study, make works from their collections available to users by dedicated terminals. In the present case, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany) is asking the Court of Justice to clarify the scope of this option, of which Germany has made use.

The Bundesgerichtshof is required to rule on a dispute between the Technical University of Darmstadt (Technische Universität Darmstadt) and a German publishing house, Eugen Ulmer KG. The university library digitised a book published by Eugen Ulmer2 before making it available on its electronic reading posts. It refused the offer of the publishing house to purchase and use as electronic books (‘e-books’) the textbooks Eugen Ulmer publishes (the book in question among them). Eugen Ulmer is seeking to prevent the university from digitising the book in question and users of the library from being able, via the electronic reading points, to print out the book or store it on a USB stick and/or take those reproductions out of the library.

In its judgment delivered today, the Court holds, first of all, that, even if the rightholder offers to a library the possibility of concluding licencing agreements for the use of his works on appropriate terms, the library may avail itself of the exception provided for in favour of dedicated terminals; otherwise, the library could not realise its core mission or promote the public interest in promoting research and private study.

Next, the Court finds that the directive does not prevent Member States from granting libraries the right to digitise the books from their collections, if it becomes necessary, for the purpose of research or private study, to make those works available to individuals by dedicated terminals. The right of libraries to communicate, by dedicated terminals, the works they hold in their collections would risk being rendered largely meaningless, or indeed ineffective, if they did not have an ancillary right to digitise the works in question.

However, the Court holds that that right of communication which may be held by publicly accessible libraries cannot permit individuals to print out the works on paper or store them on a USB stick from dedicated terminals. The printing out of a work on paper and its storage on a USB sticks are acts of reproduction, in so far as they aim to create a new copy of the digital copy made available to individuals. Such acts of reproduction are not necessary for communicating the work to users by means of dedicated terminals and are therefore not covered by the right of communication by means of dedicated terminals, particularly since they are made by individuals and not by the library itself.

The Court nevertheless adds that Member States may, within the limits and conditions set by the directive, provide for an exception or limitation to the exclusive right of reproduction of rightholders and thus permit the users of a library to print the works out on paper or store them on a USB stick from dedicated terminals. For that, it is necessary in particular that fair compensation be paid to the rightholders.

Retrieved from: