Copying of interview allowed with a reliance on the journalistic exception
Court of Amsterdam 12 May 2010, published on
MediaReport (in Dutch)
In 2008, alderman Van Hooft of Nijmegen was interviewed by a
journalist. In this
interview (in Dutch) the notorious
interview between GeenStijl reporter Rutger van Castricum and
former Minister Ella Vogelaar was discussed, among other things.
The alderman's opinion on this interview was: "Her
relation with the press was difficult. I would've just
kicked the son of a bitch of GeenStijl in the ass".
The
interview with the alderman (in
Dutch) was subsequently published in the Nijmeegse
Stadskrant.
As a result of this article, GeenStijl published a
report (in Dutch) on its
website. In this report a hyperlink was placed to an online copy
(a scan) of the interview with the alderman concerned.
The Nijmeegse Stadskrant and the journalist were of the opinion
that this was copyright infringement. GeenStijl could have sufficed
by quoting the sentence concerned and should not have copied the
entire interview. Next, in proceedings on the merits they claimed a
prohibition and damages. GeenStijl defended itself by arguing that
it did not commit copyright infringement because it was allowed to
copy the interview on the basis of the journalistic exception and
the right to quote (both the journalistic exception and the right
to quote are copyright restrictions provided for in the Copyright
Act). Moreover, in the context of the journalistic exception
GeenStijl is free to show the interview in which it was attacked.
GeenStijl furthermore argued that the Nijmeegse Stadskrant is not a
copyright holder of the interview, because the copyright is vested
in the journalist. Therefore, according to GeenStijl, the newspaper
cannot maintain the copyright.
On 12 May 2010 the Subdistrict Court of Amsterdam rendered
judgment (in Dutch). Firstly,
the Court ruled that the Nijmeegse Stadskrant's claims were
indeed not admissible, because the newspaper is not the
copyright holder of the interview. With regard to the journalist
GeenStijl's reliance on the journalistic exception was
successful, on the basis of which the news body, briefly stated,
is free to copy news reports from the news media. The
Subdistrict Court ruled that the interview could be regarded as
a 'press report', and GeenStijl could be regarded as a
'news body'. With respect to the latter the Subdistrict
Court stated:
"The defendant is a news body aimed at digital news
provision via its website GeenStijl. The copying of the interview
concerned on its website can therefore be qualified as the copying
to another medium that fulfils the same function, so that the
defendant was free to do so".
Apart from that, a successful reliance on the journalistic
exception needs the mentioning of the source of the press report,
and the copyright may not have been explicitly reserved. In this
case these conditions were also met. Because the reliance on the
journalistic exception was successful, the question of whether a
reliance on the right to quote could be successful was not
discussed. The important aspect of this case is, amongst other
things, that according to the Court, also an interview may be
copied as a news report under the journalistic exception.
The claims of the claimants were rejected, while the newspaper and
the journalist were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
GeenStijl itself has stated that it has thus won a
'giga important matter of principle'
(in Dutch).
This case was handled on behalf of the GeenStijl by Kennedy Van
der Laan's
Jens van den Brink.