In the court case that follows everything centers around the question whether or not placing a hyperlink to secret information on the internet is an infringement (a non-admissible form of publication). The court states that the internet is a free, open and readily accessible communication network. Whoever publishes something first on the internet (in a way that is accessible), publishes according to the Copyright Act. Placing a hyperlink can therefore be seen as a footnote in a book, referring to works that have already been published. Because the photos have been put on the internet by a third party, the third party is infringing and not GeenStijl.
GeenStijl, however, is not without fault, because they knew that the prior publication of the photos was illegal. Someone under an alias had sent the link, and Sanoma pointed this out to GeenStijl. Without the messages and links of GeenStijl, the consumer would not have been able to find the photos. Placing hyperlinks and messages is therefore in this case illegal. Invoking a claim on freedom of speech does not provide an answer for GeenStijl. The hyperlink was used solely to satisfy the curiosity of consumers and not to discuss any opinion. Hyperlinks themselves are not the problem, but depending on the context their use may be.portrait rights
Compra BV- domainnames, apps and website design
Mecy 2 bv - Gangster energy drinks
Martin de Waal
AIRMADE air solutions- aircondition and climat control apparatus
Piet Vijverberg Nursery - nursery specialisted in Phalaenopsis and Dracaena
Knol Power - vlogger- influencer