Scholarlink

<p><OrderedList><ListItem><ItemNumber>1.</ItemNumber><ItemContent><p>Article 3(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 a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, and which is published free of charge on a website that incorporates a geo-blocking measure designed to ensure that access to that site is blocked for internet users visiting it from that other Member State, is not the subject of a ‘communication to the public’ in that Member State, within the meaning of that provision, where that geo-blocking measure is ‘effective’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive, in that it is ‘state of the art’, even if those internet users can circumvent it using a virtual private network (VPN) or similar service.</p></ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>2.</ItemNumber><ItemContent><p>Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that where the publication, on a website, of a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ in the latter Member State because the geo-blocking measure put in place on that site is not ‘effective’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive, that communication is attributable to the person who published the work on that site and not to the provider of the virtual private network (VPN) or similar service who enabled its user to circumvent that ineffective measure.</p></ItemContent></ListItem></OrderedList></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Anne Frank Fonds”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月3日

查看全文

摘要

1.

Article 3(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 a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, and which is published free of charge on a website that incorporates a geo-blocking measure designed to ensure that access to that site is blocked for internet users visiting it from that other Member State, is not the subject of a ‘communication to the public’ in that Member State, within the meaning of that provision, where that geo-blocking measure is ‘effective’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive, in that it is ‘state of the art’, even if those internet users can circumvent it using a virtual private network (VPN) or similar service.

2.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that where the publication, on a website, of a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ in the latter Member State because the geo-blocking measure put in place on that site is not ‘effective’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive, that communication is attributable to the person who published the work on that site and not to the provider of the virtual private network (VPN) or similar service who enabled its user to circumvent that ineffective measure.