Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Out With the Old, In With The New(s)? Not for Facebook Australia
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Matthew U" data-source="post: 67495" data-attributes="member: 6696"><p>Perhaps interesting to compare what is going on in Australia with the legal battle between Alliance de la Presse d'Information Générale ('APIG') and Google in France last year.* France was the first Member State to implement Article 15 of the EU Copyright Directive, which gives press publishers the right to a fair share of revenues derived from the online use of their content. Rather than pay French press organisations for using their content in its search results, Google stated that it would no longer use extracts of articles, images, etc at all. That then created an <a href="http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/14/press-publishers-right-the-french-competition-authority-orders-google-to-negotiate-with-the-publishers/" target="_blank">awkward dilemma</a> for the publishers: allow Google to use their content for free or lose a substantial amount of web traffic.</p><p></p><p>The Autorité de la Concurrence viewed this as imposing unfair trading conditions and therefore an <a href="https://twitter.com/IsabelleDeSilva/status/1248167625361895426?s=20" target="_blank">abuse of dominant position</a>; in April 2020, it ordered Google to negotiate in good faith with French press publishers for the use of their content. The Cour d'appel de Paris upheld that decision in October 2020. Although Google has reached an agreement with APIG worth <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-france-copyright-exclusive-idUSKBN2AC27N" target="_blank">$22 million per year</a> (as [USER=1572]@Dheepa[/USER] mentioned above), the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-google-antitrust-exclusive-idUSKBN2AN268" target="_blank">Autorité is concerned</a> that Google has failed to properly negotiate with other French press organisations, such as news agency Agence France-Presse. Looks like Google isn't off the hook yet...</p><p></p><p><em>*It <a href="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2020/10/09/french-appeals-court-orders-google-to-negotiate-neighboring-rights-deal-with-publishers-397-39523/" target="_blank">seems as though</a> APIG was represented by Latham & Watkins, while Google was represented by Allen & Overy.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Matthew U, post: 67495, member: 6696"] Perhaps interesting to compare what is going on in Australia with the legal battle between Alliance de la Presse d'Information Générale ('APIG') and Google in France last year.* France was the first Member State to implement Article 15 of the EU Copyright Directive, which gives press publishers the right to a fair share of revenues derived from the online use of their content. Rather than pay French press organisations for using their content in its search results, Google stated that it would no longer use extracts of articles, images, etc at all. That then created an [URL='http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/14/press-publishers-right-the-french-competition-authority-orders-google-to-negotiate-with-the-publishers/']awkward dilemma[/URL] for the publishers: allow Google to use their content for free or lose a substantial amount of web traffic. The Autorité de la Concurrence viewed this as imposing unfair trading conditions and therefore an [URL='https://twitter.com/IsabelleDeSilva/status/1248167625361895426?s=20']abuse of dominant position[/URL]; in April 2020, it ordered Google to negotiate in good faith with French press publishers for the use of their content. The Cour d'appel de Paris upheld that decision in October 2020. Although Google has reached an agreement with APIG worth [URL='https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-france-copyright-exclusive-idUSKBN2AC27N']$22 million per year[/URL] (as [USER=1572]@Dheepa[/USER] mentioned above), the [URL='https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-google-antitrust-exclusive-idUSKBN2AN268']Autorité is concerned[/URL] that Google has failed to properly negotiate with other French press organisations, such as news agency Agence France-Presse. Looks like Google isn't off the hook yet... [I]*It [URL='https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2020/10/09/french-appeals-court-orders-google-to-negotiate-neighboring-rights-deal-with-publishers-397-39523/']seems as though[/URL] APIG was represented by Latham & Watkins, while Google was represented by Allen & Overy.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Out With the Old, In With The New(s)? Not for Facebook Australia
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…