GS Media v Sanoma

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

GS Media
European Court of Justice
Submitted April 7 2015
Full case name	GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others
Case	160/15
CelexID	62015CN0160
Nationality of parties	Netherlands

GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others (C-160/15) is a case currently pending before the European Court of Justice.^[1] The case regards a request for a Preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on whether hyperlinking to a public third-party website that contains work(s) published without the consent of the rightholder constitutes a “communication to the public” within the meaning of article 3 of the Copyright directive.^[2][3]

The case is currently pending and the hearing has been on 3 February 2016.^[4]

Geenstijl.nl (owned by GS Media) is a Dutch blog that publishes news, revelations and journalism.^[5] It has about 230.000 visitors a day and is one of the better read Dutch blogs.^[6]

In October 2011 Geenstijl received a message from an anonymous source about photographs that could be found on an Australian website called FileFactory.^[7] These were photographs shot of Britt Dekker commissioned by Sanoma to be published in the December 2011 edition of Playboy Magazine.

Before Geenstijl even published about the location of the photographs Sanoma asked the blog not to do so.^[8]

Geenstijl however published an article about the photographs and where they could be found, with a thumbnail of one of the photographs.^[9] The blog referenced the location of the photographs using a hyperlink with the text: “HIERRR” (“HEREEE”) directing users to the location of the files on the website Filefactory. On that website users could download a zip file containing the unpublished photographs of Dekker.

Sanoma asked GS Media to delete the hyperlink in the article and summoned Filefactory to delete the file of its servers.^[10] Filefactory complied with this request the same day.

Geenstijl received another summon, the blog published an article on the summon and included a hyperlink to Imageshack where some of the photographs were hosted.^[11] The third and last time a hyperlink to the photographs were posted by Geenstijl was in November 2011.

The first instance judge of the Amsterdam District Court concluded that the hyperlinks published by Geenstijl constituted a “communication to the public” in the sense of article 3 of the copyright directive.^[12] The Court held that it was of particular interest that; disclosing the link meant that it was accessible to a new public, Geenstijl benefitted from the influx of visitors, and the court took in to account the repeated summoning to delete the hyperlinks by Sanoma. The District Court finally held that there was a breach of copyright law and awarded damages.

The Court of Appeal partially overturned this decision and held that as the internet is an openly accessible network, the person that publishes the work on the internet is the one that communicates in to the public.^[13] The Court compared a hyperlink to a footnote in a book. Sanoma did not agree and argued that these specific files were not accessible to the public unless someone was handed the key to the “digital safe”. Geenstijl argued anyone with the link could download the files and the location of the files could be indexed by search engines. The court agreed with the position of Geenstijl on this argument.

At the Supreme Court of the Netherlands the main question is whether there is a “communication to the public” in the case of a hyperlink to a website where the work is published without consent of the rightholder, taking into account that the work had never been published before.^[14]

According to the Supreme Court it is necessary, in line with jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, that for a “communication to the public” the following criteria are satisfied:

• A sizeable, not originally by the rightholder targeted, audience can be reached
• This is a new audience, that has not been reached by a previous communication to the public

The Supreme court uses the previous decisions on hyperlinking in Svensson and BestWater. The Svensson case related to a case where the work was published with consent of the rightholder, before the hyperlinking happened.^[15] The criterium set out by the European Court of Justice constituted that it was of importance that the rightholder of the work had foreseen this extent of the audience at the time of the time of giving consent to communicating the work to that audience.^[16] In the case of Svensson that could be any internet user as it had no restrictive measures in place for its work to be found on the internet.

In the BestWater case a Youtube clip was embedded without consent.^[17] There was no communication to a new public, because the access to the original video was not restricted. The case discussed whether embedding could still amount to communication to a new public, because the video was shown on another website.^[18] The European Court of Justice held that embedding videos that are freely available does not constitute an infringement under article 3.

The Supreme Court concludes that there is not enough material in the Svensson and BestWater cases to answer the current question of GS Media v. Playboy. It has to consider whether with the hyperlinking a new audience has been reached. The courts held that hyperlinking to a source that is already open for anyone would not constitute a communication to a new audience, however in the Svensson case this had been done by the rightholder. It notes from a practical view that there is much content available on the internet without consent of the rightholder, therefore it is hard to find out whether a hyperlink is aimed at a work with consent of the rightholder or not.

For the reasons mentioned above the Supreme Court decided to ask prejudicial questions to the European Court of Justice to clear matters up.

There were multiple questions asked by the Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice to answer questions specific to this case. The questions that were asked by the Dutch Supreme Court are:

• 1(a) If anyone other than the copyright holder refers by means of a hyperlink on a website controlled by him to a website which is managed by a third party and is accessible to the general internet public, on which the work has been made available without the consent of the rightholder, does that constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29?
• 1(b) Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?
• 1(c) Is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the lack of consent by the rightholder for the placement of the work on the third party’s website mentioned in 1(a) above and, as the case may be, of the fact that the work has also not previously been communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?
• 2(a) If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative: in that case, is there, or could there be deemed to be, a communication to the public if the website to which the hyperlink refers, and thus the work, is indeed findable for the general internet public, but not easily so, with the result that the publication of the hyperlink greatly facilitates the finding of the work?
• 2(b) In answering question 2(a), is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the fact that the website to which the hyperlink refers is not easily findable by the general internet public?
• 3. Are there other circumstances which should be taken into account when answering the question whether there is deemed to be a communication to the public if, by means of a hyperlink, access is provided to a work which has not previously been communicated to the public with the consent of the rightholder?