Browsing not infringement

Internet users can lawfully browse articles online without the authorisation of the copyright holder, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a case with huge implications for internet use.

The court held that users who simply read or view copyright-protected web pages fall within the temporary copying exception of s 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and therefore do not need the permission of the rights holders.

It has referred the case to the European Court of Justice so the issue can be clarified across the EU.

Lord Sumption, giving the lead judgment, rejected the Newspaper Licensing Agency’s (NLA) argument that a copyright license is required because a temporary copy is made on the computer’s cache and screen as part of the technological process when browsing, in Public Relations Consultants Association [PRCA] v NLA [2013] UKSC 18. He also rejected the NLA’s argument that rights holders could be exposed to piracy, as effective remedies exist.

The decision overturns earlier rulings by the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

Lord Sumption said accepting the NLA’s arguments would lead to “an unacceptable result, which would make infringers of many millions of ordinary users of the internet across the EU who use browsers and search engines for private as well as commercial purposes”.

Michael Hart, Baker & McKenzie’s London Head of IP, who acted for the PRCA, said he believed the court’s reasoning was “absolutely right in ensuring that acts of end users which were perfectly lawful in the analogue world remain lawful in the digital world. Any other decision would have severely restricted perfectly reasonable consumer internet use”.

David Pugh, managing director of the NLA, said: “We will now await the European Court of Justice’s judgment on this matter—which may take some time regardless of the final outcome.”