根據歐盟法院（CJEU，Court of Justice of the European Union）裁決，在不是商業用途（非營利）下，以網頁超（hyperlink）連結並未取得擁有人同意的內容，是合法的；但是，如果是商業用途的超連結，則可能侵犯著作權。
如果使用未經作者同意的超連結的網站不是營利用途，則非向公眾傳播（法律上定義的"communication to the public"），也就（推定）並未知悉這是違法傳播。
"The posting of a hyperlink on a website to works protected by copyright and published without the author’s consent on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ when the person who posts that link does not seek financial gain and acts without knowledge that those works have been published illegally."
如果超連結是用來營利的，就推定網站業者知道這是違法。
"In contrast, if those hyperlinks are provided for profit, knowledge of the illegality of the publication on the other website must be presumed."
本案討論：
GS Media BV v. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc.,Britt Geertruida Dekker,
緣起，本案被告為GS Media，是荷蘭前10大新聞網站。GS Media在2011年公開的文章中加入引導讀者連接到某澳洲網站花花公子Dekker小姐的照片，經抗議後，GS Media仍不移除這個連結，甚至當澳洲網站自己移除照片時，GS Media又發表具有新的連結的文章。
澳洲網站編輯對GS Media提出著作權侵權告訴，歐洲法院的態度是，每一個向公眾傳播的行為都該要得到著作權人的允許，然而，法院其實也知道，網際網路上到處充斥著這類連結。
"every act of communication of a work to the public has to be authorised by the copyright holder."
"However, the Hoge Raad notes that the internet is overflowing with works published without the right holder’s consent.It will not always be easy for the operator of a website to check that the right holder has given his consent."
如著作權規定，每一個作者都有專屬的權利授權向公眾傳播或取得利益，同時也要在著作權人個人的利益與公眾資訊傳播自由的利益之間取得平衡。
"At the same time, that directive seeks to maintain a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests of copyright holders and related rights and, on the other, the protection of the interests and fundamental rights of users of protected objects, in particular their freedom of expression and of information,as well as the general interest."
簡單地說，就我的理解來看，定義Article 3(1)的「communication to the public」，就是除了作者本人以外透過超連結讓公眾看到並未經原作者授權的內容。
所述「傳播給公眾（communication to public）」的標準如：(1)傳播為思考過的行為，理應知道傳播行為的後果；(2)所述"公眾"包括不特定的觀者，意含有大量的觀者；(3)向公眾傳播的行為與取得利益是有關係的。
"first,the deliberate nature of the intervention. Thus, the user makes an act of communication when it intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, in order to give access to a protected work to its customers. Secondly, the concept of the ‘public’covers an indeterminate number of potential viewers and implies a fairly large number of people. Thirdly, the profit-making nature of a communication to the public is relevant."
回到本案，就是文章中插入一個URL超連結，這也算是一種「向公眾傳播」的動作，但是網際網路的精神就是每個人都有傳播資訊與交換意見的自由，但是卻要確認其中傳播的是否涵蓋「受到保護」的內容。
為了平衡各方利益，法院的意見是，當加入某個超連結的人並非是藉此尋求利益，就不曉得這是未經授權的資訊，無法知悉這是行為的後果；反之，如果加入超連結的目的是尋求利益，具有商業用途，相關人則應該知道若未取得作者授權的行為是違法的。
當加入超連結是商業用途，應盡到查核工作。因此，本案GS Media加入的超連結涉及他人的利益，應該知道將此公開給眾人是違法的。
結論：
"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, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed."
my two cents:
何謂「商業用途的超連結」？網際網路不是就是這樣流傳知識的嗎？（這是我看此篇Title的想法，結果法院意見也算是中的）
我個人僅會要求引用這裡文章的內容說明出處即可，我也是這樣使用參考文章的。
本部落格所寫的內容皆是編者經消化後用自己的方式撰寫，即便是法院案例，也都是經過理解後寫出，貼出法院意見不會有問題，但是參考國外網站的內容則會交代URL，或是說明來源。不過，這樣...是商業用途的話，可能有侵權疑慮！
歐洲法院意見：
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-09/cp160092en.pdf
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d510d6bf1b87ef418884a99823454af6c3.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pa3mSe0?text=&docid=183124&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=768422
資料來源：
http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/09/08/hyperlinks-can-infringe-copyright-if-commercial-european-high-court-says/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言