Riprodurre un video altrui tramite embedding costituisce comunicazione al pubblico

La South. Dist. Court di NY 30.07.21, Case 1:20-cv-10300-JSR, Nicklen c. SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP Inc., afferma che la riproduzione tramite il c.d. embedding di un video altrui costuisce comunicazione al pubblico : o meglio, public display secondo il 17 US code § 106 (secondo le definitions del § 101 <<To “display” a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovis­ual work, to show individual images nonsequentially>>).

Si trattava del notissimo video riproducente un orso polare tristemente magro ed emaciato che disperatamente e stancamente si trascina per i ghiacci artici in cerca di cibo.

<Embedding> è la tecnica dell’incorporamento nel proprio sito di un file che però fisicamente rimane nel server originario (l’utente non se ne rende conto)

Ebben per la Corte:  <<The Copyright Act’s text and history establish that embedding a video on a website “displays” that video, because to embed a video is to show the video or individual images of the video  nonsequentially by means of a device or process. Nicklen alleges that the Sinclair Defendants included in their web pages an HTML code that caused the Video to “appear[]” within the web page “no differently than other content within the Post,” al though “the actual Video . . was stored on Instagram’s server.” …. The embed code on the Sinclair Defendants’ webpages is simply an information “retrieval system” that permits the Video or an individual image of the Video to be seen. The Sinclair Defendants’ act of embedding therefore falls squarely within the display right>>,  p. 8-9.

La parte più interessante è il rigetto espresso  della c.d. <server rule>: <<Under that rule, a website publisher displays an image by “using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer’s memory.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007). In contrast, when a website publisher embeds an image, HTML code “gives the address of the image to the user’s browser” and the browser “interacts with the [third-party] computer that stores the infringing image.” Id. Because the image remains on a third-party’s server and is not fixed in the memory of the infringer’s computer, therefore, under the “server rule,” embedding is not display.>>, p. 9.

Infatti la <server rule is contrary to the text and legislative history of the Copyright Act>, ivi: e i giudici spiegano perchè.

Inoltre  i convenuti alleganti la server rule <<suggest that a contrary rule would impose far-reaching and ruinous liability, supposedly grinding the internet to a halt>>.

Obiezione respinta:  <<these speculations seem farfetched, but are, in any case, just speculations. Moreover, the alternative provided by the server rule is no more palatable. Under the server rule, a photographer who promotes his work on Instagram or a filmmaker who posts her short film on You Tube surrenders control over how, when, and by whom their work is subsequently shown reducing the display right, effectively, to the limited right of first publication that the Copyright Act of 1976 rejects. The Sinclair Defendants argue that an author wishing to maintain control over how a work is shown could abstain from sharing the work on social media, pointing out that if Nicklen removed his work from Instagram, the Video would disappear from the Sinclair Defendants’ websites as well. But it cannot be that the Copyright Act grants authors an exclusive right to display their work  publicly only if that public is not online>>, p. 10-11

Viene -allo stato- respinta pure l’eccezione di fair use: profilo interessante dato che Sinclair è un colosso della media industry e quindi ente for profit. Viene riconosciuto che il primo fattore (The Purpose and Character of the Use) gioca a favore del convenuto , mentre altri due sono a favore del fotografo Niclen (porzione dell’uso , avendolo riprodotto per intero, e lato economico-concorrenziale) (v. sub II Fair use).

(notizia della sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman).