Copyright infringement through electronic reading terminals?

May electronic books be made publicly accessible at electronic reading terminals in libraries without the consent of the copyright holder? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now decided this copyright law question.

Technical University Darmstadt established electronic reading terminals in its publicly accessible library, where library users have access to certain works from the library's collection. The university had digitalized the publisher's textbook to make it available to its students at the electronic reading terminals in the university library. Users of the reading terminals could even print the entire book on paper or save it to a USB stick.

The publisher and editor of the non-fiction work 'Einführung in die neuere Geschichte' opposed this practice of the university library. While copyright law permits publicly accessible libraries, museums or archives to make electronic reading terminals available for research and private studies, digitalization of language works held in the library is, according to the Copyright Act, just as impermissible as printing these works and/or storing the non-fiction books on a USB stick.

Court decision

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the publisher's action by its decision of 16.04.2015 – Az. I ZR 69/11 (Press release) – dismissed.

In its reasoning, the BGH held that the university was entitled to digitalize language works insofar as this was necessary to make these books accessible at electronic reading terminals in its library. While copyright law does not expressly provide for such regulation, its corresponding application was required because the right to make works available at electronic reading terminals would lose a substantial part of its content and even its practical effectiveness if libraries had no right to digitalize the works in question.

The university did not infringe the copyright in the book by enabling library users to print the book made accessible at electronic reading terminals or to save it to USB sticks. In principle, such reproduction could constitute a copyright infringement. However, the appellate court did not establish that unauthorized reproductions by users of the reading terminals had occurred. This could not be assumed without further ado, since printing or saving works made available at electronic reading terminals is in many cases permissible as reproduction for private or other personal use. Moreover, the university is not liable for unauthorized reproductions of the work by users of the electronic reading terminals.

Conclusion

The BGH's decision confirms the freedom of educational institutions to digitalize works for research and private studies and make them available at electronic reading terminals.