l’appello del 9° Circuito afferma quanto sopra (No. 22-15293 del 17 luglio 2023, Hunley e Brauer c. Instagram ; notizia e link da Tyler Ochoa in Eric Goldman blog).
Due fotografi avevano postato loro foto su Instagram e se le vedono poi riprrodotte tramite incorporazione (embedding) da Time e da Buzzfeed.
Agiscono solo verso Instagram per secondary liability (contributory e/o vicarious), non verso le due testate giornalsitiche.
Risposta in 1 e 2 grado: nessuna responsabilità perchè manca la violazione primaria. Infatti l’embedding non è violazione , la quale richiede una riproduzione nella forma di fissazione sul server (c.d. server test).
Precisazioni tecniche:
<<embedding is different from merely providing a hyperlink. Hyperlinking gives the URL address where external content is located directly to a user. To access that content, the user must click on the URL to open the linked website in its entirety. By contrast, embedding provides instructions to the browser, and the browser automatically retrieves and shows the content from the host website in the format specified by the embedding website. Embedding therefore allows users to see the content itself—not merely the address—on the embedding website without navigating away from the site. Courts have generally held that hyperlinking does not constitute direct infringement. See, e.g., Online Pol’y Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1202 n.12 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“[H]yperlinking per se does not constitute direct infringement because there is no copying, [but] in some instances there may be a tenable claim of contributory infringement or vicarious liability.”); MyPlayCity, Inc. v. Conduit Ltd., 2012 WL 1107648, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012) (collecting cases), adhered to on reconsideration, 2012 WL 2929392 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012).
From the user’s perspective, embedding is entirely passive: the embedding website directs the user’s own browser to the Instagram account and the Instagram content appears as part of the embedding website’s content. The embedding website appears to the user to have included the copyrighted material in its content. In reality, the embedding website has directed the reader’s browser to retrieve the public Instagram account and juxtapose it on the embedding website. Showing the Instagram content is almost instantaneous>>.
Server test, p. 18:
<<We interpreted the Copyright Act’s fixation requirement and found that an image is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” when it is “embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer’s server, (or hard disk, or other storage device).” Id. at 1160 (citing MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 517–18 (9th Cir. 1993)). Applying that interpretation, we concluded that a “computer owner shows a copy ‘by means of a . . . device or process’ when the owner uses the computer to fill the computer screen with the photographic image stored on that computer.” Id. (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101. And “a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer’s memory.” Id. This requirement that a copy be “fixed in the computer’s memory” has come to be known as the “Server Test.” See id. at 1159 (“The district court referred to this test as the ‘server test.’”) (quoting Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828, 838–39 (C.D. Cal. 2006)); Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1162, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2019).>>ù
Sua applicazione al caso, p. 34:
<<Having rejected Hunley’s legal and policy challenges to Perfect 10, we now apply the Server Test to the facts of this case.
By posting photographs to her public Instagram profile, Hunley stored a copy of those images on Instagram’s servers. By displaying Hunley’s images, Instagram did not directly infringe Hunley’s exclusive display right because Instagram had a nonexclusive sublicense to display these photos.
To assert secondary liability claims against Instagram, Hunley must make the threshold showing “that there has been direct infringement by third parties.” Oracle Am., Inc., 971 F.3d at 1050. Time and BuzzFeed wrote the HTML instructions that caused browsers to show Hunley and Brauer’s photographs on Time and BuzzFeed websites. However, under Perfect 10 these instructions did not constitute “display [of] a copy.” See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1160–61. Rather, Instagram displayed a copy of the copyrighted works Hunley posted on its platform, and the web browser formatted and displayed the images alongside additional content from Time and BuzzFeed. Because BuzzFeed and Time embedded—but did not store—the underlying copyrighted photographs, they are not guilty of direct infringement. See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1160–61. Without direct infringement, Hunley cannot prevail on any theory of secondary liability. See Giganews, 847 F.3d at 671. As a result, Instagram is not secondarily liable (under any theory) for the resulting display. The district court did not err in dismissing this case on the basis of the Server Test>>.
Nemmeno il profilo della percezione dell’utente fa cambiare opinione ai giudici di appello, pp. 30-31.
IN UE è importante a questo proposito il caso VG Bild-Kunst / Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, causa C-392/19 con sentenza C.G. 9 marzo 2021 e spt. conclusioni AG Szpunar 10.09.2020 (nella cui Introduzione v. spiegazioni tecniche in linguaggio meritoriamente accessibile), giunto a conclusioni opposte.
Resta che il contenuto esterno, pur entrando nel sito web incorporante automaticamente, viene ivi pur sempre “riprodotto”: quindi la violazione di quest’ultimo diritto dovrebbe esserci