| Abstract: | Legal context: Belgian copyright law prohibits the reproduction and publishingof works without the permission of its authors. The law, however,organizes a set of exceptions, including the quotation exception,and the news reporting exception. Key issues: Google infringes the rights of the authors by reproducing andpublishing works protected by copyright via both Google Newsand via its cached hyperlinks on www.google.be. Exceptions?The judge has considered that Google does not benefit from anyof the exceptions provided by Belgian law: neither the quotationexception, neither the news reporting exception. Implied licence?Copyright is a right of prior consent of the authors. Googlemay not argue that it acts with the implicit consent of thewebsite publishers by arguing that they could opt out from GoogleNews by the use of technical means. Practical significance: If upheld on appeal, this ruling constitutes a dangerous precedentfor the web actors, for it assumes search engines should explicitlyask prior permission to publish cache content information orexcerpts of articles. It therefore opens the door to furtherlawsuits, especially in Europe. This ruling could have an impactbeyond the internet field and adversely affect similar situations,such as radio press reviews. |
