Prejudiciële vragen: browsen gaat verder dan de tijdelijke kopie-exceptie toestaat

UK Supreme Court 17 april 20113, [2013] UKSC 18 (Public Relations Consultants Association Limited (Appellant) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and Others (Respondents)).
Uit't persbericht: Hoger beroep na [2011] EWCA Civ 1541. This appeal raises an important question about the application of copyright law to the technical processes involved in viewing copyright material on the internet.

Where a web-page is viewed by an end-user on his computer, without being downloaded, the technical processes involved will require temporary copies to be made on screen and in the internet “cache” on the hard disk of the computer. The end-user’s object is to view the material. He does not make a copy unless he downloads or prints the image. The copies temporarily retained on the screen or in the cache are merely an incidental consequence of using a computer to view the material. (...)

Lord Sumption reviewed and summarised the effects of a series of CJEU decisions [26]. He rejects the idea that article 5.1 does not apply to temporary copies generated by an end-user of the internet. Recital 33 to the Directive makes clear it was intended to “include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of catching to take place.” Browsing by its very nature is an end-user function. These acts are “acts of temporary reproduction” which “enable” browsing and are the making of temporary copies in the end-user’s cache and screen. The exception is wider than the process of transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary. Article 5.1(b) also extends it to “lawful use”. This covers use of work subject to copyright, whether or not authorised by the copyright owner, provided it is not restricted by legislation. This necessarily includes use of the work by an end-user browsing the internet [27]. Once it is accepted that the purpose of article 5.1 is to authorise the making of copies to enable the end-user to view copyright material on the internet, the various conditions laid down by it must be constructed consistently with that purpose, and apply to ordinary technical processes associated with internet browsing [28].

The above conclusions would not result in large-scale piracy. It has never been an infringement of EU or English law to view or read an infringing article in physical form. Making mere viewing, rather than downloading or printing, the material an infringement could make infringers of millions of ordinary internet users across the EU. Nothing in article 5.1 stops Meltwater needing a licence to upload copyright material on their website. The copyright owner still has remedies against pirates including the remedies provided in the Directive itself.

Given the appeal’s transnational dimension and potential implications for internet users across the EU, the Court, while expressing its own view of the matter, proposes to refer the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The question which it will refer is (in substance) whether the requirements of article 5.1 of the Directive that acts of reproduction should be (i) temporary (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process are satisfied, having regard in particular to the fact that copies may remain in the cache after the browsing session that generated them has ended until overlaid by other material, and a screen copy will remain on screen until the browsing session is terminated by the end-user [38].

Overweging 38: (...) These considerations make it desirable that any decision on the point should be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, so that the critical point may be resolved in a manner which will apply uniformly across the European Union. In my view, before making any order on this appeal, this court should refer to the Court of Justice the question whether the requirements of article 5.1 of the Directive that acts of reproduction should be (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process, are satisfied by the technical features described at paragraphs 2 and 31-32 of this judgment, having regard in particular to the fact that a copy of protected material may in the ordinary course of internet usage remain in the cache for a period of time after the browsing session which has generated that copy is completed until it is overlaid by other material, and a screen copy will remain on screen until the browsing session is terminated by the user.

The question:

In circumstances where:
(i) an end - user views a web - page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;
(ii) copies of that web - page are automatically made on screen and in the internet "cache" on the end-user's hard disk;
(iii) the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;
(iv) the screen copy remains on screen until the end - user moves away from the relevant web - page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;
(v) the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end - user views further web - pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and
(vi) the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;

Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

Op andere blogs:
Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten (WIE DIT LEEST PLEEGT AUTEURSRECHTINBREUK (?))
KluwerCopyrightBlog (UK Supreme Courts Asks CJEU Whether the Internet is Legal)
UK Supreme Court Agrees Viewing Webpages is Not Copyright Infringement