Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Start single access now
Request access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:
Copyright Law and Internet Intermediaries Liability Read chapter Read first chapter

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

3. Linking and Copyright: Easier at Last? First National Applications of the CJEU GS Media Judgment

Author : Eleonora Rosati

Published in: EU Internet Law in the Digital Era

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been asked to clarify the appropriate construction of the right of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive) in multiple occasions. When the opportunity first arose—in Svensson and Others, C-466/12—to tackle the relationship between linking to protected content and Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, the resulting judgment proved unsatisfactory. In particular, what remained uncertain was the treatment of linking to unlicenced content. In GS Media, C-160/15, the Court finally addressed this scenario. Although this judgment was arguably more articulated than the one in Svensson and Others, C-566/12, it was not less ambiguous. The first national decisions issued in the aftermath of the ruling in GS Media, C-160/15, are a demonstration of all this: national applications show diverging approaches to the interpretation of relevant CJEU case law or resistance tout court.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Who Is a Lawful User in European Copyright Law? From a Variable Geometry to a Taxonomy of Lawful Use
next chapter Forcing Flexibility with Fundamental Rights: Questioning the Dominance of Exclusive Rights
Footnotes
1
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167 (InfoSoc Directive).
 
2
They are (in chronological order, as of August 2018): CJEU, SGAE v Rafael Hoteles SA, Case C 306/05, Judgment of 7 December 2006; CJEU, Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Anonimi Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki Etaireia, Case C 136/09, Judgment of 18 March 2010; CJEU, Circul Globus Bucureşti v Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România—Asociaţia pentru Drepturi de Autor (UCMR—ADA), Case C 283/10, Judgment of 24 November 2011; CJEU, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others (C 403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C 429/08), Joined cases C 403/08 and C 429/08, Judgment of 4 October 2011; CJEU, Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09) and Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09),, Case C 431/09 and C 432/09, Judgment of 13 October 2011; CJEU, SCF v Marco Del Corso, Case C 135/10, Judgment of 15 March 2012; CJEU, Phonographic Performance v Ireland, Attorney General, Case C 162/10, Judgment of 15 March 2012; CJEU, ITV Broadcasting v TV Catchup Ltd, Case C 607/11, Judgment of 7 March 2013; CJEU, Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB, Case C 466/12, Judgment of 13 February 2014; CJEU, OSA v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s., Case C 351/12, Judgment of 27 February 2014; CJEU, BestWater v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, C 348/13, Judgment of 21 October 2014; CJEU, C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, Case C 279/13, Judgment of 26 March 2015; CJEU, Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público and Others, Case C 151/15, Judgment of 14 July 2015; CJEU, SBS Belgium v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM), Case C 325/14, Judgment of 19 November 2015; CJEU, Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA), Case C 117/15, Judgment of 31 May 2016; CJEU, GS Media v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, Case C 160/15, Judgment of 8 September 2016; CJEU, AKM v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH, Case C 138/16, Judgment of 16 March 2017; CJEU, Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, Case C 527/15, Judgment of 26 April 2017; CJEU, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, Case C 610/15, Judgment of 14 June 2017; CJEU, VCAST Limited v RTI SpA, Case C 265/16, Judgment of 29 November 2017; and CJEU, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff, Case C 161/17, Judgment of 7 August 2018.
 
3
According to some commentators, rather than a unified concept of communication to the public, in its case law the CJEU has created specific sui generis groups of communication to the public cases: see Clark and Tozzi (2016), p. 717.
 
4
World Intellectual Property Organization (2003); Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971 as amended on 28 September 1979) (Bern Convention) 11bis.
 
5
Article 1.4 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty mandates compliance with Articles 1 to 21 of and the Appendix to the Berne Convention.
 
6
On the concept of making available within Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, see Walter and von Lewinski (2010), pp. 975–980.
 
7
SCF, par. 79; Phonographic Performance (Ireland), par. 30; Reha Training, par. 35; GS Media, par. 34; Stichting Brein, C-527/15, par. 30; Stichting Brein, C-610/15, par. 25.
 
8
This part builds upon Rosati (2017a), pp. 1233–1238 and Rosati (2017b), p. 737 ff.
 
9
Karapapa (2017), p. 66.
 
10
SGAE, par. 38; SCF, par. 84; Phonographic Performance (Ireland), par. 33; ITV Broadcasting, par. 32; Svensson and Others, par. 21; OSA, par. 27; Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL, par. 19; SBS Belgium, par. 21; GS Media, par. 36; Stichting Brein, C-527/15, par. 45; AKM, par. 24; Stichting Brein, C-610/15, par. 27 and 42.
 
11
Opinion of Advocate General Antonio Mario La Pergola in EGEDA, C-293/98, EU:C:1999:403, par. 20. See further Hugenholtz and Van Velze (2016), pp. 802–803.
 
12
SGAE, par. 40, 42; Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon, par. 39; Football Association Premier League and Others, par. 197, Airfield and Canal Digitaal, par. 72; Svensson and Others, par. 24; OSA, par. 31; Reha Training, par. 45; GS Media, par. 37; Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 47; Stichting Brein, C 610/15, par. 28; Renckhoff, par. 24. But cf AKM, par. 26-27, suggesting that consideration of whether the communication at hand is addressed to a ‘new public’ is required also when the specific technical means used is different. On whether terms and conditions of use of a certain website might be relevant to determine whether the public targeted by the defendant’s link is ‘new’, see (arguing in the negative) McBride (2017), pp. 275–277.
 
13
This appeared to be the case in: Circul Globus Bucureşti, par. 40; Football Association Premier League and Others, par. 190, 193, and 207; OSA, par. 25; SBS Belgium, par. 16; and Reha Training, par. 38.
 
14
SGAE, par. 43; Svensson and Others, par. 19; GS Media, par. 27; Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 36, AKM, par. 20; Stichting Brein, C 610/15, par. 19; Renckhoff, par. 20. On the accessibility criterion, see (critically) Koo (2018), pp. 545–546.
 
15
SGAE, par. 42; Football Association Premier League and Others, par. 194, 195; Airfield and Canal Digitaal, par. 79; SCF, par. 82; Phonographic Performance (Ireland), par. 31; Reha Training, par. 46; GS Media, par. 35; Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 31; Stichting Brein, C 610/15, par. 26.
 
16
Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 41; Stichting Brein, C 610/15, par. 26.
 
17
Opinion of Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in GS Media, C 160/15, Opinion of 7 April 2016, par. 57–60.
 
18
SGAE, par. 45–47.
 
19
GS Media, par. 34, referring to: SCF, par. 79; Phonographic Performance (Ireland), par. 30; and Reha Training, par. 35.
 
20
Reha Training, par. 49, referring to: ITV Broadcasting and Others, par. 43; and Football Association Premier League and Others, par. 204. Commenting favourably on the consideration of the profit-making character of the communication at issue, see Mysoor (2013), p. 182.
 
21
GS Media, par. 51.
 
22
On this, see (critically) Synodinou (2017), p. 735.
 
23
Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 49, 51.
 
24
Rosati (2017a), pp. 1237–1238. In a similar sense, see also Clark and Dickinson (2017), pp. 269–270. Submitting instead that the profit-making intention of the ‘hyperlinker’ is to be appreciated with regard to the particular act of hyperlinking, see Rendas (2017), pp. 14.
 
25
SGAE, par. 44; Football Association Premier League and Others, par. 205–206; Reha Training, par. 63–64.
 
26
Stichting Brein, C 527/15, par. 51.
 
27
Svensson and Others, par. 16, referring to ITV Broadcasting, par. 21, 31.
 
28
In its opinion before the CJEU judgment, the European Copyright Society held the view that linking could not qualify as an act of communication to the public, also on consideration that a transmission of a work—as opposed to its mere accessibility—would be required under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive: see European Copyright Society (2013). See, contra, Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (2013).
 
29
Svensson and Others, par. 21, referring to SGAE, par. 37-38, and ITV Broadcasting, -607/11, par. 32.
 
30
Svensson and Others, par. 24, recalling (by analogy): SGAE, par. 40, 42; Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon, par. 38; and ITV Broadcasting, par. 39.
 
31
Svensson and Others, par. 25–28.
 
32
See Arezzo (2014), p. 543, and Ginsburg (2014).
 
33
CJEU, Soulier and Doke, Case C 301/15, Judgment of 16 November 2016, par. 36.
 
34
Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (2014), p. 2. See also Rosén (2016), pp. 341–347, holding that the CJEU approach in Svensson and Others, C 466/12 would be incompatible with international law and EU directives.
 
35
Also, outlining the interpretative doubts left by the decisions in Svensson and Others, C 466/12 and BestWater, C 348/13, see Leistner (2015b), p. 636.
 
36
In their analysis, Ginsburg and Budiardjo (2018), pp. 169–170, submit that post-Svensson case law might have reduced the centrality of the ‘new public’ criterion.
 
37
AG Wathelet noted that whether this was the case was not entirely clear: Opinion of Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in GS Media, C 160/15, Opinion of 7 April 2016, par. 71.
 
38
Ibid, par. 10.
 
39
GS Media, par. 17–18.
 
40
But cf. Leistner (2017), pp. 138–139, holding that not all links should be treated the same, in that the provider of a framed link should be under more than a merely minimal duty to check the lawfulness of the posted material.
 
41
GS Media, par. 28.
 
42
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.202, pp. 391–407.
 
43
Ibid, par. 30–32, referring to Svensson and Others, par. 16; SBS Belgium, par. 15; and Reha Training, par. 37.
 
44
GS Media, par. 33–35, also referring (par. 34) to: SCF, par. 79; Phonographic Performance (Ireland), par. 30; and Reha Training, par. 35.
 
45
As noted by Leistner (2015a), p. 634, the definition of the same technical means has been rather generous in CJEU case law: for instance, on the internet all potential and different forms of communication appear to constitute the same technical means.
 
46
GS Media, par. 36–39.
 
47
Ibid, par. 43.
 
48
GS Media, par. 46–50.
 
49
Ibid, par. 53.
 
50
Ibid, par. 51.
 
51
Ibid, par. 54.
 
52
This table was first published in Rosati (2016).
 
53
Court of Appeal of Athens, decision No 1909/2017 (18th section), on which see Chiou (2017).
 
54
Attunda Tingsrätt, Jonsson v Les Éditions de l’Avenir SA, FT 11052-15, 13.10.2016, on which see Malovic and Haddad (2017), pp. 89–90.
 
55
LG Hamburg, 310 O 402/16, on which see Brüß (2016) and Abrar (2016).
 
56
District Court for Prague 4, 33 T 54/2016, on which see Vivoda (2017), pp. 363–364.
 
57
Bundesgerichtshof, I ZR 11/16 - Preview III.
 
58
LG Hamburg, 308 O 151/17.
 
59
Opinion of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar in Stichting Brein, C 610/15, Opinion of 8 February 2017.
 
60
LG Hamburg, 310 O 117/17.
 
Literature
Arezzo E (2014) Hyperlinks and making available right in the European Union - what future for the Internet after Svensson? IIC 45(5):524 CrossRef
CJEU, Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C 431/09) and Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C 432/09), Case C 431/09 and C 432/09, Judgment of 13 October 2011
CJEU, AKM v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH, Case C 138/16, Judgment of 16 March 2017
CJEU, BestWater v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, C 348/13, Judgment of 21 October 2014;
CJEU, C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, Case C 279/13, Judgment of 26 March 2015;
CJEU, Circul Globus Bucureşti v Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România – Asociaţia pentru Drepturi de Autor (UCMR – ADA), Case C 283/10, Judgment of 24 November 2011
CJEU, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others (C 403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C 429/08), Joined cases C 403/08 and C 429/08, Judgment of 4 October 2011
CJEU, GS Media v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, Case C 160/15, Judgment of 8 September 2016
CJEU, ITV Broadcasting v TV Catchup Ltd, Case C 607/11, Judgment of 7 March 2013
CJEU, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff, Case C 161/17, Judgment of 7 August 2018
CJEU, Organismos Sillogikis Diacheirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Anonimi Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki Etaireia, Case C 136/09, Judgment of 18 March 2010
CJEU, OSA v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s., Case C 351/12, Judgment of 27 February 2014;
CJEU, Phonographic Performance v Ireland, Attorney General, Case C 162/10, Judgment of 15 March 2012
CJEU, Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA), Case C 117/15, Judgment of 31 May 2016
CJEU, SBS Belgium v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM), Case C 325/14, Judgment of 19 November 2015
CJEU, SCF v Marco Del Corso, Case C 135/10, Judgment of 15 March 2012
CJEU, SGAE v Rafael Hoteles SA, Case C 306/05, Judgment of 7 December 2006
CJEU, Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público and Others, Case C 151/15, Judgment of 14 July 2015
CJEU, Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, Case C 527/15, Judgment of 26 April 2017
CJEU, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, Case C 610/15, Judgment of 14 June 2017
CJEU, Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB, Case C 466/12, Judgment of 13 February 2014
CJEU, VCAST Limited v RTI SpA, Case C 265/16, Judgment of 29 November 2017
Clark B, Dickinson J (2017) Theseus and the labyrinth? An overview of “communication to the public” under EU copyright law: after Reha Training and GS Media where are we now and where do we go from here? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 39(5):265
Clark B, Tozzi S (2016) “Communication to the public” under EU copyright law: an increasingly Delphic concept or intentional fragmentation? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 38(12):715
Ginsburg JC, Budiardjo LA (2018) Liability for providing hyperlinks to copyright-infringing content: international and comparative law perspectives. Columbia J Law Arts 41:153
Hugenholtz PB, Van Velze SC (2016) Communication to a new public? Three reasons why EU copyright law can do without a “new public”. IIC 47(7):797 CrossRef
Karapapa S (2017) The requirement for a “new public” in EU copyright law. Eur Law Rev 42(1):63
Koo J (2018) Away we Ziggo: the latest chapter in the EU communication to the public story. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 13(7):542 CrossRef
Leistner M (2015a) Copyright at the interface between EU law and national law: definition of “work” and “right of communication to the public”. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 10(8):626 CrossRef
Leistner M (2015b) Copyright law on the internet in need of reform: hyperlinks, online platforms and aggregators. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 12(2):136
Leistner M (2017) Closing the book on the hyperlinks: brief outline of the CJEU’s case law and proposal for European legislative reform. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 39(6):327
Malovic N, Haddad P (2017) Swedish court finds that an embedded link to unlicensed content infringes copyright. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 12(2):89 CrossRef
McBride P (2017) The “new public” criterion after Svensson: the (ir)relevance of website terms and conditions. Intellect Prop Q 3:262
Mysoor P (2013) Unpacking the right of communication to the public: a closer look at international and EU copyright law. Intellect Prop Q 2:166
Rendas T (2017) How Playboy photos compromised EU copyright law: the GS Media judgment. J Internet Law 20:11
Rosati E (2017b) The CJEU Pirate Bay judgment and its impact on the liability of online platforms. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 39(12):737
Rosati E (2017a) GS Media and its implications for the construction of the right of communication to the public within EU copyright architecture. Common Mark Law Rev 54(4):1221 CrossRef
Rosén J (2016) How much communication to the public is ‘communication to the public’? In: Stamatoudi IA (ed) New developments in EU and international copyright law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Synodinou TE (2017) Decoding the Kodi box: to link or not to link? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 39(12):733
Vivoda J (2017) Czech court finds that linking to unlicensed content does not infringe copyright if the website is not operated for profit. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 12(5):363 CrossRef
Walter MM, von Lewinski S (eds) (2010) European copyright law – a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Metadata
Title
Linking and Copyright: Easier at Last? First National Applications of the CJEU GS Media Judgment
Author
Eleonora Rosati
Copyright Year
2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Book
EU Internet Law in the Digital Era

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25578-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-25579-4

Copyright Year: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25579-4_3