Franse modefotografen worden beperkt in het publiceren van foto's
EHRM 10 januari 2013, Appl. nr. 36769/08 (Ashby Donald e.a tegen Frankrijk)
Auteursrecht, modehuizen en modefotografen. Fotografen worden beperkt in het publiceren van foto's en videomateriaal die bij gelegenheden zijn gemaakt. Tot die gelegenheden krijgen journalisten middels een "accreditatiesysteem" toegang en zijn ze verplicht zich te houden aan de voorschriften, waaronder deze beperking.
Op de KluwerCopyrightBlog schrijven Dirk Voorhoof, Universiteit Gent en Inger Høedt-Rasmussen, Copenhagen Business School: For the first time in a judgment on the merits, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that a conviction based on copyright law for illegally reproducing or publicly communicating copyright protected material can be regarded as an interference with the right of freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention. Such interference must be in accordance with the three conditions enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. This means that a conviction or any other judicial decision based on copyright law, restricting a person’s or an organisation’s freedom of expression, must be pertinently motivated as being necessary in a democratic society, apart from being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim.
It is, in other words, no longer sufficient to justify a sanction or any other judicial order restricting one’s artistic or journalistic freedom of expression on the basis that a copyright law provision has been infringed. Neither is it sufficient to consider that the unauthorised use, reproduction or public communication of a work cannot rely on one of the narrowly interpreted exceptions in the copyright law itself, including the application of the so-called three-step test (art. 5.5 EU Directive 2001/29 of 22 May 2001). The European Court’s judgment of 10 January 2013 in the case of Ashby Donald and others v. France unambiguously declares Article 10 of the Convention applicable in copyright cases interfering with the right of freedom of expression and information of others, adding an external human rights perspective to the justification of copyright enforcement. Due to the important wide margin of appreciation available to the national authorities in this particular case, the impact of Article 10 however is very modest and minimal.
Lees de gehele (Engelstalige) bijdrage hier.
Op andere blogs:
DirkzwagerIEIT (Auteursrecht tegenover vrijheid van meningsuiting op internet)
European Copyright Society (Opinion on The Reference to the CJEU in Case C-466/12 Svensson)
IE-Forum (verzamelde reacties)
IPKat (Are fashion photographs a human right? The answer is...)
KluwerCopyrightBlog (European Copyright Society issues opinion on Svensson hyperlinking case)
VlaamseNieuwsmedia (Auteursrecht versus het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting: EHRM spreekt zich voor het eerst uit)
