These are the slides of a presentation Eric & I gave at the “IP Management challenges in open innovation environments” workshop, held in Strasbourg, France, in March 23, 2015.

1. Eric Favreau
Head of Legal - eYeka
Yannig Roth
Marketing Manager - eYeka
1

2. 2
BUSINESS BRIEF
COMMUNITY BRIEF
OPEN COMPETITION
MODERATION,
& ANALYSIS
WINNER SELECTION,
IP TRANSFER
1
2
3
4
5

3. 3
DESIGN POINT OF SALE COMMUNICATIONINSIGHTS VIDEOSINNOVATION

4. 4
C R O W D S O U R C I N G
“Obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting
contributions from a large group of people, and especially from
an online community, rather than from traditional employees or
suppliers.”
I N D U S T R I A L I Z E D C R O W D S O U R C I N G
“Enterprise adoption of the power of the crowd allows
specialized skills to be dynamically sourced from anyone,
anywhere, and only as needed. Companies can use the
collective knowledge of the masses to help with tasks from data
entry and coding to advanced analytics and product
development. The potential for disruptive impact on cost alone
likely makes early experimentation worthwhile, but there are
also broader implications for innovation in the enterprise.”

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7
“Crowdsourcing is
like discount sushi.
While competition is
good, crowdsourcing
can also hurt
designers because of
the increased
opportunities to take
advantage of creative
talent.”
Scott Belsky, on The Next Web

8. Is crowdsourcing in a grey area of law?
 No specific regulation (unlike crowdfunding)
 No major legal case
Crowdsourcing is at the crossroad of
several legal specialties (Favreau, 2014)
 Consumer law (participants are not professionals)
 Privacy law (disclosure of personal data)
 Labor law (work relationship between participants
and sponsors)
 Intellectual Property (transfer of rights on the
submissions)
8

9. 9

10. 10
Context: Creative crowdsourcing also stirs up
controversy
#Travailgratuit movement

11. Autonomy is the main criteria to
distinguish independent work and
employment work (Favreau, Roth &
Lemoine, 2014)
Risk to see an independent worker’s
contract redefined as an
employment contract in order for
the worker to benefit the
employee’s status
 Minimum wage, working time, termination
fees…
11

12.  Employment contract needs three cumulative
elements:
 Work is executed
 Monetary compensation
 Subordination
 Relationship of subordination needs three
cumulative elements:
 Management power
 Disciplinary power
 Supervision power
 Lawsuits in the USA against micro-task
platforms
 Crowdflower
 Yelp
12

13. eYeka runs open contests with independent creators
Limited risk to get a lawsuit for labor law violation
Community is free to
participate or not
No subordination
No control over process of
creation
Freedom is key to creativity
What about creative Crowdsourcing?

14. Rules of participation
Relative autonomy
Click-wrap contract
Accepted by all participants
Defines:
• Dates, prizes
• Content guidelines
• Terms of use of entries
• Warranty: creators warrant
that the company will
quietly enjoy and exercise
the rights attached to the
entries

15. New type of contests: eYeka‘s Content Production
Limited autonomy of the creators
Special remuneration for
the execution of the work
Supervision and management
by eYeka during the making of
videos
No “free work”
Stage-based contests, pitching
of ideas (Roth & Kimani,
2014)

16. 16

17. Transfer of Intellectual Property: Copyrights
• Companies use crowdsourcing as an alternative way
of gaining rights on creative content
• Selected winners transfer their IP rights to the
company, getting a compensation (non-winners keep
their IP rights)

18. Use of the selected entries
• Company gets exclusivity : the winning creator can’t sell the submission to a
competitor
• Selected submissions can be used as a whole and their elements (incl. logos,
characters, slogans, titles…), for the creation of derivative works by the company
or its agency (using elements from the original submission: screenplay, characters,
dialogues, organization of the elements, layout, texts…)
• For the maximum legal duration of protection of the IP rights and for worldwide
use.
• For all types of use, including:
• Market research, Generation of insights
• External communication, Advertisement, Point of sales
• Create, market, distribute products reproducing the work
• Right to file and gain new rights, file trademarks, File designs

19. Assignment Agreement
Signed by the selected participants
Confirmation of the obligations
set forth in the Rules
Proper contract allows good
information of creator and
stronger binding effect than
online contract
Contractual obligations similar to
professional standards (warranty,
confidentiality)

20. Depending on the type of contests, participants are allowed to use third party elements
(as long as they provide information and relevant license) OR are required to provide
100% original content
Crowdsourcing creators are often non-professionals who include pre-
existing elements in their works
Infringement Notice
Legal Information
Securing the transaction

21. Securing the transaction
Creators can be required to provide documents to secure the transaction as a
condition of the prize grant:
Model authorization
Proof of id
If creator has used
copyrighted elements
If creator is a minor

22. 22

23. Autonomy is a key element
to compare crowdsourcing
and employment work
The legal framework of
crowdsourcing is based on
standard legal rules of IP
Management of IP must
adjust to the non-
professional status of
participants
23

24. 24
Thank you for
your attention

25. Articles & books
 Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Favreau, E. (2014). Rôle et responsabilité des acteurs du crowdsourcing. Revue Lamy
Droit de L’immatériel, (106), 62–66.
 Favreau, E., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2014). Travail ou pas? L’autonomie des
participants au crowdsourcing et ses implications. In 7èmes journées d’études TIC.IS.
Alès (France).
 Felstiner, A. (2011). Working the Crowd: Employment and Labor Law in the
Crowdsourcing Industry. Berkeley Journal Of Employment & Labor Law, 32(1), 143–
204.
 Kuehn, K., & Corrigan, T. F. (2013). Hope Labor: The Role of Employment Prospects in
Online Social Production. The Political Economy of Communication, 1(1), 9–25.
 Lebraty, J.-F., & Lobre-Lebraty, K. (2013). Crowdsourcing (p. 144). London: ISTE Ltd
and John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Links
 http://news.eyeka.net/tag/legal/
 https://en.eyeka.com/resources/webinars#legal
25

26. Jean-François Lemoine
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
ESSCA Ecole de Management
Yannig Roth
eYeka
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Eric Favreau
eYeka
Abstract:
This article looks at an aspect which is often mentioned – but rarely
treated – of crowdsourcing: its legal implications. Based on existing
typologies from information and management science, we describe the
different forms that crowdsourcing takes today, before focusing on the
concept of autonomy to present the opportunities and risks that
companies may face turning to the crowd. We then discuss our findings
and suggest feature research directions.
Keywords:
crowdsourcing, typology, autonomy,
legal, labor26

27. Jean-François Lemoine
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
ESSCA Ecole de Management
Yannig Roth
eYeka
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Eric Favreau
eYeka
Résumé :
Cet article propose d’aborder un aspect souvent mentionné mais
rarement traité du crowdsourcing : les enjeux juridiques. En nous basant
sur les typologies existantes en sciences de gestion et de l’information,
nous décrivons les différentes formes que prend le crowdsourcing
aujourd’hui, puis nous nous concentrons sur le concept d’autonomie
pour présenter les opportunités et les risques que les entreprises
peuvent rencontrer en utilisant la foule. Nous discutons ensuite nos
résultats et présentons les voies futures de recherche.
Mots-clés :
crowdsourcing, typologie, autonomie,
juridique, travail
Travail ou pas? L’autonomie des
participants au crowdsourcing et ses
implications juridiques
27