Saturday 27 February 2016

CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' New Media Online

CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' - Tech Bytes Fieldfisher: "Where video content is included on a newspaper's website, they must be primarily linked and relevant to the text-based journalistic content in order to fall outside the principal purpose test and hence the AVMS Directive. It does not matter how the video content is organised (whether imbedded within articles or collated on a separate sub-domain) or whether the videos are part of a wider news service. This strikes us as a sensible approach, in that the AVMS Directive should not be capable of circumvention merely by the service architecture and the way content is presented.

 It is also interesting to compare the CJEU's judgment on the principal purpose test with an earlier decision of Ofcom in the Sun Video case. In that case, Ofcom found in favour of the Sun (as there was significant linking between the videos and the articles) and also laid out some examples of characteristics of a service which did meet the principal purpose test. These included the length of the content, whether the service was styled like a television channel and whether the videos were catalogued on a separate section. Interestingly, these examples don't chime well with the CJEU's recent judgment, so we might expect to see some recasting by Ofcom and any other EU regulators who have taken a similar view." 'via Blog this'

Friday 26 February 2016

New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat

CURIA - List of results: "Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof - Austria.
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ - Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service - Comparability of the service to television broadcasting - Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet.
Case C-347/14."

Analysis here 'via Blog this'