header-logo header-logo

Clarity on hyperlink copyright clash

19 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Landmark European ruling in Svensson brings relief for IP lawyers

Intellectual property lawyers have breathed a sigh of relief following a European ruling that sharing hypertext links does not automatically infringe copyright.

In Svensson v Retriever Sverige C-466/12 on the interpretation of Art 3(1) of the Copyright Directive, the European Court of Justice clarified that sharing clickable links with third parties is not an infringement, as long as they do not circumvent paywalls or make the linked information available to a “new” public.

The case, which arose from a copyright dispute in Sweden between a newspaper and a website, concerned whether a hyperlink was “an act of communication to the public”, thereby falling within the copyright holder’s exclusive right and requiring their permission.

The court held that hyperlinks are indeed “an act of communication” but that the communication must be to a “new” public for liability to arise—one that was not the intended audience of the copyright holders at the time of the initial posting.

Tom Ohta, associate, Bristows, says the ruling that linking to “freely accessible” content would not infringe reflects a sensible approach; to have found otherwise could have had a “chilling” effect on the internet.

He adds: “What is significant is the clarification that a hyperlink can fall within the scope of the exclusive right. However, it is not yet clear how this ruling will apply to links to infringing content which are copied and passed on. Two pending judgments on linking and framing are expected later this year, which will hopefully give further clarity on this issue.”

Joshy Thomas, LexisPSL specialist in IP, says: “Content rich businesses where linking is key will be considering whether they now need the protection of more restrictive paywalls.  

“They may also consider whether there are choices to be made about, in certain limited cases, periodically disrupting access to make things more difficult for linkers, or controlling access through protection software. Those who are keen to monetise linking, including the use of embedded links to third party content, will be heartened by the decision.”

Susan Hall, IP specialist at Clarke Willmott, says: “This is a landmark decision and sets a clear protocol for the sharing of hyperlinks once and for all.”

 

Issue: 7595 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll