Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB
Providing a clickable link to a work that is freely available on another website is not a communication to a new public, so it does not infringe copyright.
Facts
Mr Svensson and other journalists wrote articles for a Swedish newspaper, which were published on the newspaper's website, where they were freely available. Retriever Sverige ran a website that provided its clients with lists of clickable links to articles on other websites, including the journalists' articles. The journalists claimed that providing the links was a communication of their works to the public without their consent.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that providing clickable links to works freely available on another website was an act of communication, but it was not a communication to a new public, because the works were already available to all internet users on the original website, so the public targeted by the links was the same as that targeted by the original communication. It did not matter that, when users clicked the link, the work appeared to be on the linking site. However, if the link circumvented restrictions on access to the work, it would be a communication to a new public.
Related cases on copyright: infringement and defences
- Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] Ch 149
- Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247
- Deckmyn v Vandersteen Case C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132
- Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416
- Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
- GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV Case C-160/15, EU:C:2016:644
- Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
- Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
