Dice di si la corte distrettuale di S.D. New York 21.03.2022, No. 19 Civ. 9617 (KPF)., McGucken v. Newsweek , nell’ormai frequente caso di uso di foto altrui (da Instagram) nel proprio sito con la tecnica dell’embedding (in sostenza, un reindirizzamento al sito originario anche se non visibile all’utente)
Il fotografo (professionista) agisce verso Newsweek che aveva usato un suo scatto caricato sul profilo Instagram , senza aver prima ottenuto il suo consenso (l’aveva cercato ma non ottenuto): agisce per violazione della privativa sul public display (17 US code § 106 e 106.5).
E’ rigettata l’eccezione, per cui non c’è violazione per mancata stabile riproduzione nel sito del convernuto , essendoci solo un rinvio tramite il codice html al sito originario:
<<This Court rejects Defendant’s argument. For starters, it notes that the server test has not been widely adopted outside of the Ninth Circuit, see Goldman, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 591, and that other courts have persuasively argued that such a test may be “contrary to the text and legislative history of the Copyright Act,” Nicklen v. Sinclair Broad. Grp., Inc., 551 F. Supp. 3d 188, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142768, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2021). After all, the Copyright Act defines “display” as “to show a copy of” a work, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and not “to make and then show a copy of the copyrighted work.” Nicklen, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142768, at *13. The Ninth Circuit’s approach, under which no display is possible unless the alleged infringer has also stored a copy of the work on the infringer’s computer, would seem to make the display right merely a subset of the reproduction right. Id. (internal citation omitted). The Copyright Act makes clear, however, that to “show a copy” is to display it. Id. (citing 17 U.S.C. § 101).
Congress did “not intend… to freeze the scope of copyrightable technology” to then-existing methods of expression. H.R. Rep. 94-1476, 47, 51 (1976). Specifically, in considering the display right, Congress cast a very wide net, intending to include “[e]ach and every method by which the images… comprising a… display are picked up and conveyed,” assuming that they reach the public. Id. at 64. It further noted that “`display’ would include the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube, or similar viewing apparatus connected with any sort of information storage and retrieval system.” Id. Indeed, an infringement of the display right could occur “if the image were transmitted by any method (by closed or open circuit television, for example, or by a computer system) from one place to members of the public elsewhere.” Id. at 80.
Under the server test, “a photographer who promotes his work on Instagram… 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.” Nicklen, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142768, at *15.
Defendant is correct that Plaintiff “maintained control” over the Instagram Post in the sense that he “could (and still can) take it down at any time.” (Def. Br. 10). 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.” Nicklen, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142768, at *15.
Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant did in fact display Plaintiff’s Photograph when it embedded the Photograph in the Article. See id. at *8-16 (finding that news outlet “displayed” copyright owner’s video, within meaning of Copyright Act, when it embedded video in online article about the video’s popularity without obtaining license)>>.
Decisione analoga sarebbe stata presa secondo il nostro diritto.
Seguono altre considerazioni -importanti nella pratica- sull’altra frequente difesa, per cui l’adesione ad Instagram prevede una licenza ad esso confacoltà di sub licenza.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)