A week ago, The IPKat reported and commented on the important decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in VG Bild-Kunst, C-392/19.
In that judgment, the CJEU admitted the possibility for rightholders to restrict linking by contract, provided that any such restrictions are imposed and/or implemented through the adoption of effective technological measures, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (3) of the InfoSoc Directive.
According to the CJEU, this requirement - which, as I wrote, might raise questions of compatibility with the no formalities rule in the Berne Convention - is prompted by the need to "ensure legal certainty and the smooth functioning of the internet".
Readers may be aware that, over the past few years, I have developed IP and study aid materials (they can all be accessed here) primarily aimed at my students. Among them, there was a table - first published on The IPKat here - summarising the treatment of linking after the seminal CJEU decision in GS Media [Katposts here].
I have now updated that table so to include the findings in VG Bild-Kunst. To this end, I have added a column on contractual restrictions on linking. The table is obviously a simplified summary of CJEU decisions on linking, but hopefully will serve to give an introductory and easily understandable picture of what the law on linking is under EU copyright.
The new table, which is licensed under a CC-BY-NC Creative Commons licence, can be downloaded from here and is also reproduced below.
I hope that readers will find it useful.
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html