Communication to a New Public? Three Reasons Why EU Copyright Law Can Do Without a “New Public”

  • P. Bernt HugenholtzEmail author
  • Sam C. van Velze


This article critically examines the “new public” test in EU copyright law, which was developed by the CJEU when interpreting the right of communication to the public in cases of retransmission and hyperlinking. As the authors seek to demonstrate, this test is flawed for at least three reasons: historical, conceptual and economic. EU copyright law can well do without a “new public” test.


Copyright Communication to the public New public Berne Convention Hyperlinking Aggregation 


  1. ALAI Executive Committee (2013) Report and opinion on the making available and communication to the public in the internet environment—focus on linking techniques on the internet. Adopted unanimously by the Executive Committee on 16 September 2013Google Scholar
  2. ALAI Executive Committee (2014) Opinion on the criterion “New Public”, developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), put in the context of making available and communication to the public, proposed to the Executive Committee and adopted at its meeting on 17 September 2014Google Scholar
  3. ALAI Executive Committee (2015) Report and Opinion on a Berne-compatible reconciliation of hyperlinking and the communication to the public right on the Internet, adopted by the Executive Committee on 17 June 2015Google Scholar
  4. Arezzo E (2014) Hyperlinks and making available right in the European Union: What future for the internet after Svensson? IIC 45(5):524–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baggs S, Hansson S (2013) What’s the catch? The CJEU judgment in ITV v TVCatchup. Eur Intellect Property Rev 35(6):363–365Google Scholar
  6. Bently L et al (2013) European Copyright Society, Opinion on the Reference to the CJEU in Case C-466/12 Svensson, 15 February 2013. European Copyright Society 2013Google Scholar
  7. Cock M, Van Asbroeck B (2015) Le critère du «public nouveau» dans la jurisprdudence de la Cour de justice. Intellectuele rechten- Droits intellectuels 4:259–278Google Scholar
  8. Depreeuw S (2014) The variable scope of the exclusive economic rights in copyright. Information law series. Kluwer Law International, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreier T, Hugenholtz PB (2006) Concise European copyright law. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  10. Ficsor MJ (2014) Svensson: honest attempt at establishing due balance concerning the use of hyperlinks – spoiled by the erroneous ‘new public’ theory. Available at: 5 May 2014
  11. Ginsburg JC (2004) The (new) right of making available to the public. In: Vaver D, Bently L (eds) Intellectual property in the new millennium, essays in honour of William R. Cornish. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein P, Hugenholtz PB (2013) International copyright, principles, law, and practice, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Hugenholtz PB (1996) Adapting copyright to the information superhighway. In: Hugenholtz PB (ed) The future of copyright in a digital environment. Kluwer Law International, Den Haag/London/Boston, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  14. Leistner M (2016) Reformbedarf im materiellen Urheberrecht: Online-Plattformen und Aggregatoren. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 7:580–594Google Scholar
  15. Masouyé C (1978) Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Paris Act 1971, Published by the World Intellectual Property Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Mom GJHM (1990) Kabeltelevisie en auteursrecht. Koninklijke Vermande, LelystadGoogle Scholar
  17. Predonzani G (2014) Connecting hyperlinks to copyright law. Eur Law Rep 2:34–41Google Scholar
  18. Ricketson S (1987) The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886–1986. Kluwer, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary CollegeGoogle Scholar
  19. Ricketson S, Ginsburg JC (2006) International copyright and neighbouring rights; the Berne Convention and beyond, vol 1, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosati E (2014) Luxembourg, we have a problem: where have the Advocates General gone? J Intellect Property Law Pract 9(8):619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosen J (2015) The CJEU ‘new public’ criterion? National judges should not apply it, says Prof Jan Rosen. Available at: 15 April 2015
  22. Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (2014) EU copyright law. A commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stevens P (2014) A hyperlink can be both a permissible and an infringing act at the same time. J Intellect Property Law Pract 9(7):548–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strowel A, Hanley V (2009) Secondary liability for copyright infringement with regard to hyperlinks. In: Strowel A (ed) Peer-to-peer file sharing and secondary liability in copyright law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham/NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsoutsanis T (2014) Copyright and linking can tango. J Intellect Property Law Practice 9(6):495–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Visser D (2013) Openbaarmaken met Ketchup. tijdschrift voor Auteurs-, Media- & Informatierecht 2:41–51Google Scholar
  27. von Lewinski S (2008) International copyright law and policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Walter M, von Lewinski S (2010) European copyright law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Woods A (2012) The CJEU’s ruling in Premier League pub TV cases—the final whistle beckons: joined cases Football Association Premier League LTD v QC Leisure (C-403/08) and Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08). Eur Intellect Property Rev 34(3):203–207Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Law (IViR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations