GS Media: IPKat/Bristows rapid response seminar

Image result for gs mediaFurther to last week's  GS Media decision [hereherehere], the IPKat and Bristowspartnered together for a rapid response event to discuss some of the resulting relevant issues. The event was held on 13 September at the stunning London offices of Bristows.

Katfriend Lucie Fortune (Bristows) was there, and has kindly provided a report on the event.

Here's what Lucie writes:

“On Tuesday evening, a group of lawyers, tech-enthusiasts and movers and shakers in the digital space congregated at Bristows for a rapid response seminar on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in GS Media, C-160/15

Chaired by Mark Brown (Bristows), the panel featured Aimee Nisbet (Hearst Corporation), Eleonora Rosati (University of Southampton and IPKat), Nicholas Saunders (Brick Court Chambers) and Theo Savvides (Bristows).

“Communication to the public” – the judicial landscape

Mark Brown kicked off the panel discussion by introducing GS Media as the latest decision in a line of cases on the “communication to the public” right (emanating from Article 3 of the InfoSoc Directive). He reminded the audience that in order to understand the context of Article 3 it is important to look at certain recitals of that Directive, namely 9 (which suggests that copyright should be afforded a “high level of protection”), 10 (which states that the investment in producing creative and artistic work must be awarded by adequate protection of IP rights), 23 (that the right of “communication to the public” should be given a broad interpretation, covering all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates) and 31 (that the interests of rightholders must be balanced against the interests of users of the works in the electronic environment). 

Mark commented that the CJEU has attempted to balance these interests but this has resulted in decisions that have (at times!) been unclear.  The panel provided a brief reminder of the key UK and CJEU cases dealing with the meaning of (1) an act of “communication” and (2) a “public”, both in the context of re-transmission of broadcast signals (SGAE v Rafael Hotels Case C-306/05SCF v Marco Del Corso Case C-135/10ITV v TV Catchup Case C-607/11 and Reha Training v GEMA Case C-117/5) and P2P networks (Polydor v Brown [2005] EWHC 3191Twentieth Century Fox v Newzbin [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch)Dramatico Entertainment v BSkyB [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch) and EMI Records v BSkyB [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch).

After briefly running through the Svensson decision [Katposts here], the leading CJEU decision on copyright and clickable links until GS Media, Aimee Nisbet gave an insight into the practical problems raised by hyperlinks in the print and digital media sphere, both for rightsholders and publishers. As a rightsholder, when internet users post links to unauthorised or leaked content the primary concern is often brand or reputational damage, particularly as it can be impossible to ensure that all such links are taken down once a leak has gained attention. Putting her publisher hat on, Aimee then explained that it was important to put into place pragmatic policies, for example not linking to leaked or clearly unauthorised content and instead contacting the rightsholder directly to seek authorisation. To do otherwise would risk being left with holes in a publisher’s content if the link later has to be taken down.

Post-GS Media clarity
GS Media – a discussion

It was then time for the panel to turn to the meaty part of the seminar: the GS Media decision, (which, with its nude photos and relationship to Playboy magazine, was (probably rightly!) described by Theo Savvides as the raciest case to ever cross the CJEU’s bench). 

Eleonora explained that, in his Opinion on 7 April 2016 [here], Advocate General Wathelet held that the provision of a hyperlink to a work made available on a certain website without the initial consent of the relevant rightholder and where it is freely accessible is not be regarded as an act of “communication to the public”. This was a very liberal approach to linking, perhaps taken on the basis that linking protects freedom of expression which is the ‘very sense’ of the internet. 

As keen readers will be well aware by now, the CJEU departed slightly from this position finding that if a person provides such a link, this will not be a “communication to the public” provided that (1) the link is provided without the pursuit of financial gain; and (2) the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, the illegal nature of the publication of those works. If the link is provided for financial gain, knowledge must be presumed.

Financial gain

This prompted a lively discussion regarding what constitutes “financial gain” for these purposes (as, despite being central to the decision, it was sadly not defined by the CJEU). Might links posted on a blog where there is no direct income from the link itself but the blogger obtains an income from adverts count as posting the link in “the pursuit of financial gain”?  What about hyperlinks posted by individuals on their LinkedIn profiles, arguably posted for the furtherance of one’s career – might these fairly be described as posted in “the pursuit of financial gain”? Could all links posted in a business context be said to be for “financial gain”?

Eleonora explained that the approach taken by the CJEU in the past has been, loosely, that the providing a link is for profit if it makes that person’s business or establishment more attractive. How national courts construe the “pursuit of financial gain” in future linking cases remains to be seen…

Knowledge requirement

Turning to the second part of the GS Media test, the ‘knowledge’ requirement, Theo Savvides highlighted the difficulties surrounding an obligation on internet users to verify whether or not the content they are linking to is authorised. This could be a harsh obligation when such verification might be impossible. Further, introducing a subjective element to primary copyright infringement appears to be at odds with the primary/secondary infringement divide. 

Aimee Nisbet commented that in the context of her business at the Hearst Corporation, the GS Media decision is likely to be a double-edged sword: on the one hand helping it as a rightsholder but on the other hand being detrimental to its publishing activities. By way of illustration, Aimee explained that on average each story published on Hearst Corporation’s websites contains approximately 10 links (these links may be to advertisements, other publications, videos and/or music on YouTube). On the basis of the publication of approximately 100 articles a day, it would be impossible to verify every link and the content to which it is linking. In the post-GS Media world, publishers will need to be aware of the risks and tailor their approach accordingly.

Profit-making intention
Leaked Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market

The panel then turned to a brief discussion on the leaked draft Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market [here; the actual proposals, including a Directive, were unveiled by the Commission on Wednesday].

Eleonora explained the provisions of draft Article 13, which requires intermediaries that store and provide access to large amounts of works uploaded by their users to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with right holders and to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject matter not covered by such agreements, including through the use of effective content identification technologies [NB: Article 13 in the recently-released Directive appears to be even more stringent.] Eleonora questioned how this is compatible with Articles 14 (the hosting exception) and 15 (no general obligation to monitor) of the E-Commerce Directive, and also said that it is unclear whether hosting providers are those that actually commit acts of communication to the public (it is rather the users of their services).

Aimee then went on to discuss the new ‘ancillary right’ introduced by draft Article 11.  This right provides the publishers of newspaper publications with the rights contained in Article 2 (the reproduction right) and Article 3(2) (making available to the public) of the InfoSoc Directive for the online use of their news publications. [NB: Article 11 of the proposed Directive unveiled on Wednesday refers to “press publications” rather than “news publications” – the new term is potentially broader.]  This ancillary right has a duration of 20 years after the publication of the news publication. Aimee commented that this provision appears to be aimed at stopping news aggregators copying data and preventing users from visiting the publisher’s online sites.  Similar laws have already been implemented in Spain and Germany – Aimee explained that a Spanish lawyer has made her aware that this has led to certain search engines de-listing news publishers from their indexes. This has forced the news publishers to strike individual agreements with the search engines, effectively agreeing that the law does not apply to them, which must make us question how effective such a provision will actually be.

Nicholas Saunders then explained the draft Articles 14 and 15 which provide for fair remuneration for authors and performers by way of contract adjustment mechanism when the remuneration agreed is disproportionately low compared to subsequent revenues. After a question from the floor there was some discussion as to whether this would work in a similar way as for patent bonuses. Nicholas commented that this could be quite an alarming development forcing parties to be backward looking after the event. 

In closing remarks, the panel concluded that the GS Media decision did not “break the internet” but nor does it provide a solution to many of the questions still raised about linking.

Thanks must go to the panellists for being ready to dissect the decision so soon after it was handed down.”
GS Media: IPKat/Bristows rapid response seminar GS Media: IPKat/Bristows rapid response seminar Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Friday, September 16, 2016 Rating: 5


  1. ...did you just provide a link to an unauthorised copy of content in the form of the leaked draft directive?

  2. Is it enough to verify the content of the page you link to at the time when you create the link? Or is there an ongoing obligation to monitor that page for changes that might introduce new, unauthorized matter? If so, it seems an even heavier burden.

  3. But is IPkat doing it for lucrative gain? Arguably yes , it appears to operate that way as the benefits can be discerned depending on who the poster is and the actions taken and derived from as a result of that blog post -lecture circuit, career development, etc etc.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.