ECJ rules on GS Media and reshapes case law on hyperlinking

The ECJ has gone against the Advocate General's opinion and set new conditions under which a hyperlink may constitute a ā€œcommunication to the publicā€ and therefore a third party copyright infringement. The ECJ has undeniably reshaped online digital communication rules, which will impact the legal risk faced by companies over their digital communication strategies

1
27688

The GS Media case – in the spotlight, again

In a rare move, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) went against AG Wathelet’s opinion published earlier this year and onĀ 8 September 2016 ruled on the GS Media case, which reshaped case law on hyperlinking and potential third party copyright infringement.

GS Media, which operates the Dutch entertainment website GeenStijl.nl,Ā is a Dutch media publishing website that provides users withĀ hyperlinks to online content. As previously discussed on MediaWrites, GeenStijl placed hyperlinks on its website to leaked Playboy photos. On 26 October 2011, editor Sanoma News informed GS Media that said hyperlinks redirected users to photographsĀ published without permission of the copyright holder. GS media disregarded Sanomaā€™s request to take down the hyperlinks. In fact, theyĀ redirected users to a second hosting locationĀ when Sanoma managed to take down the photographs hosted on the first redirected site.

ECJ tackles unanswered questions on hyperlinking

The ECJ was faced with the task ofĀ assessing whetherĀ hyperlinking to a work made available on Internet without consent of the copyright holder constituted a ā€œcommunication to the publicā€ and therefore a potential copyright infringement. In previous cases, notably Svensson and Bestwater, the ECJ already explained that a hyperlinkĀ does not constitute a ā€œcommunication the publicā€ when the linked work is already freely available on Internet and does not circumvent measures taken to restrict the publicā€™s access to such work. These two previous decisions were interpreted by many as a total ā€œfreedom to linkā€ to copyrighted works as long as these works were already freely available online.

One big question mark remained, however, which the ECJ had not spoken toĀ prior toĀ GS Media: Should a work posted online without the copyright owner’sĀ consent be considered to be “freely available”? The response was loud and clear: ā€œthe Court intends to refer only to the posting of hyperlinks to works which have been made freely available on another website with the consent of the right holderā€.

It is now clear from GS Media that those posting hyperlinks to works published online illegally mayĀ fall foul of copyright law.Ā The ECJ explained thatĀ this exemption is necessary to ensure aĀ balance between copyright, freedom of expression and availability of online information.

To profit or not to profit…

The ECJ ruling also means that infringement would notĀ seemingly occur if a hyperlink were published by a personĀ that does notĀ direct users to a protected work out of pursuit of profit. In this scenario, the personĀ  or company publishing the hyperlink would only be responsible if they knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink provided access to a work illegally placed on the Internet. For example, where copyright holders notify said publisher.Ā By The ECJ has effectively introduced a new ā€œnotice and take-downā€ regime applicable to hyperlinks, similar to the notice and take down procedure already applicable to hosted online content. Some will find itĀ unfortunate that this new ā€œnotice and take-downā€ regime will only be applicable to those publishing hyperlinks in a not-for-profit manner.

Indeed, when a person or company postsĀ a hyperlink for-profit, the ECJ considers thatĀ they should carry out any necessary checks to ensure that the work has not been published online illegally. They will therefore have presumedĀ knowledge that the work was published illegally. Publishers could in this context extend toĀ any company publishingĀ hyperlinks as part of their digital communication strategy. Even if the ECJ does not offer details on this point, should a company carry outĀ necessary checksĀ and believes it can post the hyperlink online,Ā it may be that itĀ will not face any liability even if the link directsĀ  users to a work posted without the owner’s consent. The ECJ does say in recital 51 that the presumption can be rebutted. It is to be determined what these checks will actually involve practice.

What does this mean for companies publishing hyperlinks?

The consequences of GS Media on the digital communication industry are therefore important. Companies should now be extra cautious and put in place new safeguards in their digital communication strategy, notably on social networks, where communication is largely based on framing hyperlinks to third party content. Companies should adopt a best practice system to verify that a content was not published online illegally before hyperlinking.

This article was written by Benjamin Znaty and Marc Schuler in our Paris office.

 

1 COMMENT

Leave a Reply