The document discusses issues around user generated content on social networking sites. It addresses questions of who owns the copyright to user created content, how sites generate revenue from user content, and who should be liable for any copyright infringement by users. It provides examples from sites like Flickr, SoundCloud and Facebook. It also summarizes a report on legal issues surrounding The Pirate Bay in Sweden, including a 2009 court ruling finding them guilty of contributory copyright infringement.

1. Johan Kahn
Advokat för att ändra format på
Klicka här
underrubrik i bakgrunden
IFCLA – Helsinki
June 11, 2010

2. Agenda
• Focus on IPR and User Generated Content
1. Whose content?
2. Whose revenue?
3. Who is liable for User Generated Content?
4. Report from Sweden – Pirate Bay
6/15/10 Company presentation .

3. .

4. Whose Content?
• IPR – Copyright
• User Created Content
– Text
– Clips
– Music
– Photographs
• User Generated Content
– Movies
– Clips
– Music
– Photographs .

5. Whose content?
(Friends Reunited)
.

6. Whose content?
(Soundcloud)
.

7. Whose content?
(Flickr)
.

8. Whose content?
• Transfer of IPR
• License
• License – Creative Commons
• Is licensing relevant?
– Who is using the copyright protected material
• ISP
• UGC Service Provider
• user/uploader/seeder?
• Use outside the Social Networking Services?
• Are the IPR terms reasonable in relation to end-users?
.

9. Whose revenue?
• Means of SNS profit generation:
- Provision of advertisement space
- Charging users for premium services
- Charging users for specific applications, (e.g:
Facebook’s virtual icons, TenCent:s virtual
clothes and accessories for avatars)
- Selling content (e.g: Twitter’s deal with
Google & Bing, allowing tweets in search
results)
- Selling user-information for ”ad-targeting”
• Examples of revenue sharing:
- Second Life; Ning: when digital items created
by users are sold, the profit is shared equally
between the SNS and its’ users.
• Subject to contractual arrangements
.

10. Who should be liable for UGC?
• Infringement
– Reproduction of copies
– Communication to the public
• Contributory liability/Vicarious
• Criminal liability
• Liability for damages
• Injunctions
.

11. Who should be liable for UGC?
• SNS-provider liability
–1
• Is there at any relevant copyright use of the material?
– 2
• Are there any defenses available?
• Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of
information society services, in particular electronic
commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic
commerce')
.

12. Who should be liable for UGC?
• Information Society Services
– Normally provided for remuneration
– At a distance
– By electronic means
– At the individual request of the recipient
• Mere Conduit (article 12) and Caching (article 13)
– “shall not affect the possibility for a court or
administrative authority, in accordance with Member
States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider
to terminate or prevent an infringement.”
– Injunction possible
.

13. Who should be liable for UGC?
• Hosting Defense
– Member States shall ensure that the service provider is
not liable for the information stored at the request of a
recipient of the service, on condition that:
• (a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and,
as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the
illegal activity or information is apparent; or
• (b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to
remove or to disable access to the information
– Paragraph 1 [the defense] shall not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under
the authority or the control of the provider’
– Injunction possible
.

14. Who should be liable for UGC?
A selection of European Cases relating to Article 14 of the Directive on electronic commerce – Hosting Defense
• F) Lafesse vs MySpace
• Publisher or host? – Frame structure and advertisement revenue
• (F) Nord Ouest Production v Dailymotion
• Publisher or host?
• Awareness or not?
• Inducement/Intentional?
• (F) Zadig Productions v Google Inc
• Publisher or host?
• Measures required to prevent reappearance
• (UK) Kaschke v (1) Gray (2) Hilton (Defamation, blog)
• SNS-provider content on the same site as illegitimate material
• General or actual knowledge
• Degree of monitoring and moderation
• (CJ) Google AdWords v Louis Vuitton and others
• Article 14
• Active role – Knowledge or control over data stored
• National courts
• (CJ) Interflora v Marks & Spencer (Pending)
• ´ Transmission (Mere Conduit) or Hosting – Article 13 and 14
• (CJ) Sabam v Scarlet Extended SA
• Filtering
• (D) Rapidshare v Capelight Pictures
• Filtering
.

15. Report from Sweden
•
The Pirate Bay (2003 - ?)
•
District Court of Stockholm (April 2009)
•
Contributory copyright infringement
•
Imprisonment – 1 year
•
Damages = SEK 30 000 000 (€ 3 000 000)
•
Court of Appeal (September 2010)
.

16. Report from Sweden
• Contributory copyright infringement
– Communication to the public
– The defendants had furthered copyright infringement by:
þ Providing upload and storage of bit torrent files
þ Providing a database/catalogue
þ Making search and download possible
þ Providing contact between users
þ Subjective requirements fulfilled
þ Joint criminal liability
• Defense under Directive on Electronic Commerce?
þInformation Society Service
× “General” Actual knowledge of illegal activity or
.
information

17. Report from Sweden
• Pirate Bay and ISPs – Injunctions and Blocking
– Sweden
• Black Internet (Preliminary Injunction granted)
• Portlane (Preliminary injunction granted) court of appeal
– Germany
• Cyberbunker (Preliminary injunction granted) district
– Ireland
• Eircom
– Norway
• TONO v Tele2 (Transmission ≠ contributory copyright infringement)
– Denmark
• IFPI v DMT2 – Tele2 (Transmission = contributory copyright infringement – appealed)
– The Netherlands
• Brein v The Pirate Bay (Removal of links)
– Italy
• Italian ISPs
.

18. Concluding remarks
• Service providers have deeper pockets – preferred targets?
• Why license for User Generated Content?
• Information society services – Remuneration could be in the
form of advertisement exposure
• The monitoring paradox
• Specific or general knowledge or awareness?
• Voluntary deals with right holders on revenue sharing
.

19. List of references
• Selection of Articles
– F.J. Cabrera Blázquez, User Generated Content Service and Copyright, IRIS, Issue 2008-5
– S. Holmes and P. Ganley, User-generated Content and the Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2007, Vol. 2, No. 5 (pp. 338-344)
– D. Osborne, User Generated Content (UGC): Trade Mark and Copyright Infringement Issues, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2008,
Vol. 3, No. 9 (pp. 555-562)
– P. Valcke and M. Lenaerts, Who’s author, editor and publisher in user-generated content? Applying traditional media concepts to UGC providers,
International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2010 (pp. 119-131)
– E. Valgaeren and N. Roland, YouTube and User Generated Content Platofrm – New Kids on the Block?, Legal Aspects of Video on Demand, IRIS
Special, 2007 (pp. 29-40)
• Selection of Cases
– Rapidshare v Capelight Pictures (OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil v. 22.03.2010, Az. I-20 U 166/09)
– Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (”SABAM”) v Scarlet Exteneded SA (C/70/10)
– Lafesse v MySpace (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris Ordonnance de référé 22 juin 2007 and Cour d’appel de Paris 14ème chambre, section A
Arrêt du 29 octobre 2008)
– Dailymotion v Nord Ouest (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris 3ème chambre, 2ème section Jugement du 13 juillet 2007)
– Zadig v Google (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris 3ème chambre, 2ème section Jugement du 19 octobre 2007)
– Kaschke v (1) Gray (2) Hilton (Kaschke v Gray & Hilton, [2010] EWHC 690 (QB))
– Google v Louise Vuitton (C-236-238/08)
– Interflora v Marks & Spencer (C-323/09)
– Pirate Bay – (District Court of Stockholm 2009-04-17, case nr B- 13301-06)
– Black Internet , Portlane et al (Svea hovr. Ö 7131-09, Ö 8773-09 och Ö 10146-09)
– DTM2-Tele2 (Decision of 5 February 2008 from Bailiff's Court of Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Case FS 14324/2007)
– TONO v Tele2 (Ruling of Asker and Bærum District Court on 6 November 2009 )
– Brein v The Pirate Bay(Amsterdam District Court rulings in cases number 432071 / KG ZA 09-1411 WT/RV and 428212 / KG ZA 09-1092 WT/RV)
– Cyberbunker (Landgericht Hamburg, 10th Civil Chamber, 310 O 154/10)

20. Klicka här för att ändra format på
underrubrik i bakgrunden
Johan Kahn
Advokatfirman Delphi
johan.kahn@delphi.se
www.delphi.se