After Sweden and Germany, GS Media finds its application in the Czech Republic

After Sweden [here, here, and here] and Germany [here and here], it is now the turn of a Czech court [here] to apply the seminal decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in GS Media [for a quick, visual summary see here; Kat-coverage here]

The result? Quite ‘interesting’, as Katfriend Juraj Vivoda (Marek & Partners) explains.

Here’s what Juraj writes:

An open war, yarr!

In 2011 a 16-year old teenager from the Czech town of Liberec was accused and two years later found guilty of a crime that consisted of embedding on his own website ( films protected by copyright. Nicknamed the ‘Liberec Pirate’, this case involved a classic ‘embedded links’ scenario where the embedded links pointed to works uploaded and stored on third-party websites.

The Czech division of the Pirate Party (CPP) strongly criticized the ruling and started a campaign claiming that “Linking is not a crime". The CPP also declared an open war against the Czech Anti-Piracy Union (CAPU) that often represents rightholders in similar cases. The CPP even went as far as creating its own website (; translated “I watch TV shows”) where its visitors were able to post embedded links to episodes of various TV shows.

The CPP was pleased when the legality of its openly provocative website was tested in criminal proceedings brought before the District Court for Prague 4 (Obvodni soud pro Prahu 4).

Gold?! You want gold?!

Before applying the criteria provided by the CJEU in its recent case law on the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, the Czech court reviewed earlier national decisions of the Czech Supreme Court on hyperlinking. In particular, the Court highligthed how in all previous cases, a profit-making intention of the operators of websites providing hyperlinks to works protected by copyright and made available without authorization of the rightholders had been present and established. In this way, the Court distinguished the facts of the CPP case from the facts of previous national cases.

The GS Media test

The Czech court then turned to CJEU case law, namely the judgments in Svensson, BestWater and - most recently – GS Media

As for the application of the GS Media test, the Court referred to paragraphs 47 to 49 of the judgment to conclude that where embedded links are provided to works made available on another website without the authorization of the relevant rightholders, it must be first established whether such embedding was carried out with the intention to make a profit. The Court inferred from GS Media that where embedded links are not provided for profit, it must be presumed that the website operator did not know and could not have known that the initial communication was unlawful. In contrast - the Court noted - where links are provided for profit, the knowledge of illegality of initial communication must be presumed. 

The Court held that where it can be established that the website operator knew or could have known that the hyperlinks point to works illegally uploaded on the internet, for example on the basis of the fact that the operator has been notified of this fact by the relevant rightholders, it must be concluded that the provision of such hyperlinks constitutes an act of ‘communication to public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive.

Profit-making considered

In determining whether the CPP website was operated for profit, it satisfied the Court that no advertisements were placed on the CPP website and that no connection had been established between one particular seller of T-shirts (with the slogan “ and I don’t intend to stop”) and the CPP as an operator of the website. Based on these considerations, the Court held that the CPP had no knowledge of the illegality of the initial communication.

Notify or nothing: the ‘no knowledge’ presumption

In applying this (new) presumption, the Court acknowledged that the CAPU had notified in writing the CPP that its hyperlinks pointed to works initially communicated without the authorization of the relevant rightholders. However, the court concluded at the same time that since the CAPU had failed to demonstrate to the CPP its authorization to represent rightholders by providing the relevant power of attorney as requested by the CPP, the presumption of ‘no knowledge’ could not be rebutted. Taken together, the Court found the CPP not liable of copyright infringement which, under the Czech criminal laws, can be committed only intentionally.


There are two interesting aspects of this case [note that the decision is provisional].

The first is that the Court intended the notion of ‘profit making’ quite broadly (ie any advertisements on the website and not just profit resulting from clicking on hyperlink - similar to the German application of the GS Media judgment).

The second is that, in determining whether the website operator had knowledge of the illegal nature of initial communication, the court applied the GS Media presumption without considering whether the knowledge and, for that matter, the intent, could have been established in some other way (ie “could have known”). The fact is that the Pirate Party operated its website as a form of protest (although the CPP chairman is cited as saying that it was operated to achieve “a functional balance between the rights of authors, distributors and consumers of works protected by copyright”) and to demonstrate disagreement with the CAPU practices.

All in all, it seems that the Czech judgment is hardly a big win for the Czech Pirate Party. The Czech court established a heightened legal standard for notification, but that does not change the reality that upon its receipt, website operators will probably still be held liable unless they remove the hyperlinks in question.” 
After Sweden and Germany, GS Media finds its application in the Czech Republic After Sweden and Germany, GS Media finds its application in the Czech Republic Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, February 06, 2017 Rating: 5


  1. The Cat That Walks by HimselfMonday 6 February 2017 at 10:16:00 GMT

    I would expect by now a smartphone application for lawyers implementing the table logic.

  2. I do not see how this judgment is in line with the GS Media-principles. Clearly, the Pirate Party "knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink they posted provided access to works illegally placed on the internet". If CPP actually did not "know", which I highly doubt given the nature and purpose of the website, they "ought to have known" that the site links to illegal content. Such knowledge can not be considered missing simply because CAPU did not present a power of attorney or similar authorization.

  3. @Mirko:

    You're right. The court was totally oblivious to that. It strikes me even more since the standard of proof in criminal proceedings should be higher.

  4. "Clearly the Pirate Party "knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink they posted provided access to works illegaly placed on the internet"". How? That is simply a blanket statement based on your own prejudices, completely divorced from the current case law.

    The Pirate Party simply asked for links to TV shows, they did not specifically ask for links to illegal copies of tv shows. There was no reason for them to assume that any specific link led to illegal, rather than legal, content. Further, based on the GS Media test, as they weren't making any profit, they were under no obligation to check whether the links were to illegal copies or not. It is extremely clear that based on current case law there was an evidentiary burden to be met to prove that the Pirate Party had knowledge that any specific link led to infringing material. That burden was not met.

  5. I argee, I do not see how one could argue that videos of such kind were not unauthorized or highly unlikely to be unauthorized. I believe the presumption is self can be seen in line with previous case law however it appears that the burden has been set too high in order to rebut this presumption. If one was to take for example the Swedish case and assume that the link to the youtube video was not made by a profite making new agent but a hobby blogger making no profits of any kind it appears much easier to see how the presumption would result in fair result. The ruling of this case however appears to label any non -profit website runner as a nieve and ignorant internet user, when this is not the case. It may therefore be to question whether intentions should be considered or play a role, although this is not at all the approach taken by the CJEU


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.