European Court of Justice: hyperlinks to unauthorized content may infringe copyright

December 2016

By Tobias Cohen Jehoram, Partner, De Brauw, Blackstone, Westbroek, Amsterdam, Netherlands

* This article was first published at:

Hyperlinking has become more risky. In its long-awaited judgment in Sanoma/GS Media, delivered on September 8, 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified that the posting of a hyperlink to unauthorized content protected by copyright and hosted by a third party may result in copyright infringement. This will be the case if the person posting the link knows or should have known that the hyperlink directed visitors to illegally published works. The ECJ also held that if hyperlinks are posted in the context of pursuing financial gain, full knowledge about the possible illegal character of the works is to be presumed. This means that commercial parties in particular will now have to thoroughly investigate and monitor what type of content they link to on their websites and in other forms of online communication.


The case

The case concerned a complaint by the Sanoma, the publisher of the Dutch edition of Playboy, about a posting by Geen Stijl (GS) regarding as-yet-unpublished pictures of Dutch reality star Britt Dekker. In its post, GS provided a hyperlink to an Australian website where some of the copyright-protected Playboy pictures could be downloaded. Sanoma argued that the mere posting of this hyperlink constituted a “communication to the public” protected by its copyright, and that GS’s publication of the hyperlink could therefore be prohibited. GS argued that hyperlinking did not fall within the author’s exclusive right, because the ECJ did not consider linking to legal content an infringement since there was no communication to a “new public” (Svensson and Bestwater). In 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court decided to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ.

The ECJ’s answers in Sanoma Media Netherlands BV et al v GS Media show that a hyperlink’s legal status is ambiguous. Under European copyright law, hyperlinking to illegal content does not in principle qualify as a “communication to the public”. However, when the person posting the hyperlink has or should have had knowledge of the illegal character of the content hosted by a third party, hyperlinking will fall within the scope of the author’s exclusive right and can therefore be prohibited. The permissibility of a hyperlink thus has to be decided on the basis of an individual assessment. In that context, the ECJ held that it will be particularly relevant whether or not a hyperlink is posted by a commercial party pursuing financial gain. As the Court felt that commercial parties can be expected to carry out the necessary checks before posting a hyperlink, they are presumed to be fully aware of the legality of the third-party content they link to.

Consequences of the judgment

Although this presumption can be rebutted, the Sanoma/GS Media judgment is likely to have serious consequences for commercial website operators in general, and news media in particular. The presumed knowledge about the legality of content will apply not only in cases where a hyperlink posting is directly connected to the aim of pursuing financial gain, but also seems to apply to websites seeking financial gain in the broadest sense of the word. With the exception of state-owned media, practically all owners of commercial websites will therefore run a higher risk of liability when posting a hyperlink. In anticipation of the outcome of the ongoing judicial process, commercial parties are therefore advised to carefully reassess their take-down and screening processes. Apart from that, commercial parties should carefully reconsider the benefits of hyperlinking to third-party content for their business in general. They should check the legality of new links that they post. And wherever possible, it is advisable to regularly check the legality of third-party content after the hyperlink has been posted, because content hosted by third parties may later be changed without notification.

This decision also seems to mark a new approach to the definition of “communicating to the public” whereby it becomes dependent on subjective circumstances such as the commercial intent of the user and their actual or presumed knowledge of the nature of the source of the material. This may lead to legal uncertainty in other situations too.

The WIPO Magazine is intended to help broaden public understanding of intellectual property and of WIPO’s work, and is not an official document of WIPO. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication is not intended to reflect the views of the Member States or the WIPO Secretariat. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WIPO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.