The Court of Justice rules that a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, is not making a ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of EU law.In addition to this, such a broadcast is not of a profit-making nature, it does not, therefore, give rise to a right to remuneration for phonogram producers.

The rule of the Court of Justice with regard to the case of Società Consortile Fonografici ('SCF') acts as a collecting agency, both within and outside Italy, and manages, collects and distributes the royalties of its associated phonogram producers, against the Association of Italian Dentists (Associazione Dentisti Italiani) with a view to concluding a collective agreement quantifying the relevant equitable remuneration for any ‘communication to the public’ of phonograms, including such communication in private professional practices, shows that a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, is not making a ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of EU law. Recently, the Court of Justice also cleared that a social network cannot be obliged to install a filtering system to protect copyrights.

The Court decision, though does not decide the dispute itself because it is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. In this case, the rule is based in three criteria: first and foremost, according to the case-law of the Court, the indispensable role of the user. The user makes a communication to the public when it intervenes. Second, the concept of public. The term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential listeners and a fairly large number of persons. Third, the Court has held that the profit-making nature of 'communication to the public' is also a relevant criterion. It is thus understood that the public which is the subject of the communication is both targeted by the user and receptive, in one way or another, to that communication, and not merely ‘caught’ by chance.

Therefore, the Court ruled that a dentist who broadcasts phonograms free of charge in his dental practice, for the benefit of his clients and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, is not making a ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of EU law. Moreover, such a broadcast is not of a profit-making nature. The patients of a dentist visit a dental practice with the sole objective of receiving treatment, as the broadcasting of phonograms is not a part of dental treatment.