In its judgment issued on 9 July in the case of Constantin Film Verleih (C-264/19), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, when a film is uploaded to an online video platform without the copyright owner's agreement, Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights does not require judicial authorities to order the operator of the video platform to provide the e-mail address, IP address or telephone number of the user who uploaded the film in question.
The Directive, which contains provision for the “addresses” of individuals who infringe an intellectual property right to be provided, only actually covers the postal address.
As a reminder: in 2013 and 2014, the films Parker and Scary Movie 5 were uploaded to the YouTube video platform without the agreement of Constantin Film Verleih, the owner of the exclusive exploitation rights to the works in Germany.
They have been viewed several tens of thousands of times on the platform. Constantin Film Verleih then demanded that YouTube and Google (the latter being the parent company of the former, where users first have to register to get a user account) provide it with a set of information relating to each of the users who had uploaded the films. Both companies refused. In a statement, the Court stated that the dispute revolved around the question of whether such information is covered by the definition of ‘addresses’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/48.
The Court found first that the usual meaning of the term ‘address’ only covers the postal address, i.e. a given person’s permanent address or habitual residence. It follows that the term, when it is used without any further clarification, as in Directive 2004/48, does not refer to the email address, telephone number or IP address.
Moreover, the preparatory work that led up to the adoption of Directive 2004/48 contained nothing to suggest that the term ‘address’ should be understood as referring not only to the postal address but also to the email address, telephone number or IP address of the persons concerned. An examination of other EU legal acts referring to email addresses or IP addresses reveals that none of them uses the term ‘address’, without further details, to designate the telephone number, IP address or email address.
However, the Court clarified that Member States have the option of granting holders of intellectual property rights the right to receive fuller information, provided, however, that a fair balance is struck between the various fundamental rights involved and the principle of proportionality.
Link to the judgment: https://bit.ly/2BTNWxj (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)