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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll