NETHERLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Radboud Ribbert and Wouter van Wengen, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
the test would create inconsistent treatment of applied art across the EU. Member states cannot impose limitations on EU copyright protections, such as applying the reci - procity test, unless explicitly authorised by EU law. Any limitations to intellectual property rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must be legislated by the EU itself. The CJEU ruling eliminates the applicability of the material reciprocity test to works of applied art in EU countries, ensuring that such works originating outside the EU can claim copyright protection if they meet EU standards. This devel - opment expands the scope of copyright protec - tions within the EU, benefitting creators from countries with stricter copyright regimes. Class Action Lawsuits Against Big Tech In recent years, there has been a rising trend of class action lawsuits targeting Big Tech com - panies over issues related to copyright infringe - ment, data privacy, and unfair business prac - tices. These legal challenges are increasingly highlighting the power imbalance between tech giants and individual creators or consumers. One such case is currently before the Amsterdam District Court, where Meta’s efforts to negotiate a licensing agreement with the Dutch organisa - tion Pictoright, a copyright organisation repre - senting visual creators, are being scrutinised. In an interim judgment, the Amsterdam District Court assessed Meta’s efforts to establish a licensing agreement with Pictoright. Pictoright claimed that Meta infringes on the copyrights of its members by exploiting their works on Face - book and Instagram without authorisation. Pic - toright sought a declaration that Meta is liable for
damages and must pay an appropriate licensing fee. The court concluded that both Facebook and Instagram qualify as online content-sharing ser - vices under Article 29c of the Dutch Copyright Act (Auteurswet). These platforms focus on storing and making accessible a large volume of user-generated literary, scientific, or artistic works to the public, while organising and pro - moting such works for profit. Based on this classification, the court must determine whether Meta made its best efforts to negotiate a licens - ing agreement with Pictoright. Meta proposed to assess the economic value of Pictoright’s repertoire using a data discovery method. However, Pictoright disputes the reli - ability of this method and refuses further co- operation. The court found that Meta’s proposed method lacks sufficient transparency and verifi - ability for Pictoright. Pictoright does not have insight into how the method operates and must conduct manual research to verify its results. Since the manual results obtained by Picto - right differ from those generated by Meta’s tool, Pictoright understandably declined to continue negotiations. The court emphasised that a licensing agree - ment must reflect the economic value of the rights in the marketplace, ensuring fairness and a reasonable balance between the parties. To evaluate the suitability and transparency of Meta’s method, the court decided to involve independent experts. If it is determined that Meta has not made its best efforts to negotiate a licensing agreement, the company could be held liable for damages. Until the experts submit their findings, the court reserves its decision on compensation. The case
377 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook