In conducting a China–EU comparative study on copyright regulation of framed/embedded hyperlinking, investigations of both their legal contexts and specific measures are necessary, though the former has long been overlooked. To answer what cues both jurisdictions can take from each other, this article observes each jurisdiction's uniqueness in the scope of the right of communication to the public, the implied licence's legitimacy and the criteria for assuming liability. Their legal contexts, i.e. China's centralisation and collectivism, and the EU's harmonisation and individualism, shape detailed copyright measures. They also determine each jurisdiction's key pursuit to improve their regulation: the EU seeks to accommodate its hybrid liability approach within the harmonised legal system; China calls for a definitive regulation. In exchanging beneficial practices, the EU can obtain insights from China in updating its safe harbour; China may refer to the EU to introduce a case referral system, qualify framed/embedded hyperlinking as C2P, and legitimise the implied licence. Both jurisdictions should limit the 'for-profit' requirement to financial gains.
Yue Lu (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: