header-logo header-logo

16 September 2019
Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property , Media , Technology
printer mail-detail

E-protection for authors & artists

The resale of e-books is unlawful under EU law, according to an Advocate General’s opinion.

The opinion, delivered last week in Tom Kabinet (C-263/18), a Dutch referral, will be welcomed by rightsholders of digital works protected by copyright, including music, films and games as well as e-books, Zoey Forbes, associate in technology, media and entertainment at Harbottle & Lewis, said.

The case arose when Tom Kabinet, an online second hand e-book seller, was sued by the Dutch Publishers Association and the General Publishers Group in a dispute over the extent of distribution rights and the rule of exhaustion. The case centres on when copyright of digital property can be said to be exhausted―is it after the first sale, or at a later stage?

Forbes said: ‘The Opinion also acknowledges the risks to rightsholders that may arise from a second-hand market for e-books, including cannibalisation of the primary market and the increased risk of piracy.

‘Although the Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it is rare for the CJEU to take a radically different stance, and we therefore expect the CJEU to reach a similar conclusion in its upcoming judgment. However, it is worth noting that the Advocate General recognises that the digitisation of content has upset the traditional balance between the rights of the user and the rightsholders and that there may be practical and policy reasons in favour of the resale of digital works, although the law and other arguments are to the contrary.

‘Much like the US courts in the case of Capitol Records v Redigi, he therefore firmly places any changes to the law in the hands of the EU legislature rather than the judiciary.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll