Sulla responsabilità degli Internet Service Provider (ISP)

Ancora sulla responsabilità degli internet provider per le violazioni copyright dei loro utenti (con un cenno a Twitter v. Taamneh della Corte Suprema USA, 2023)

Approfondita sentenza (segnalata e linkata da Eric Goldman, che va sempre ringraziato) US BANKRUPTCY COURT-SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, In re: FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Reorganized Debtors, Case No. 20-22476 (MG), del 27 marzo 2024.

Si v. spt. :

-sub III.A, p. 13 ss, “Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement Is a Well-Established Doctrine”;

– sub III.B “Purpose and Effect of DMCA § 512”, 24 ss.

– sub III.D “Twitter Did Not Silently Rewrite Well-Established Jurisprudence on Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement” p. 31 ss sul rapporto tra la disciplina delle violazioni copyright e la importante sentenza della Corte Suprema Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023).

Di quest’ultima riporto due passaggi dal Syllabus iniziale:

– la causa petendi degli attori contro Twitter (e Facebook e Google):

<< Plaintiffs allege that defendants aided and abetted ISIS in the
following ways: First, they provided social-media platforms, which are
generally available to the internet-using public; ISIS was able to up-
load content to those platforms and connect with third parties on them.
Second, defendants’ recommendation algorithms matched ISIS-re-
lated content to users most likely to be interested in that content. And,
third, defendants knew that ISIS was uploading this content but took
insufficient steps to ensure that its content was removed. Plaintiffs do
not allege that ISIS or Masharipov used defendants’ platforms to plan
or coordinate the Reina attack. Nor do plaintiffs allege that defend-
ants gave ISIS any special treatment or words of encouragement. Nor
is there reason to think that defendants carefully screened any content
before allowing users to upload it onto their platforms>>

– La risposta della SCOTUS:

<<None of plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that defendants culpably “associate[d themselves] with” the Reina attack, “participate[d] in it as
something that [they] wishe[d] to bring about,” or sought “by [their]
action to make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen, 336 U. S., at 619 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Defendants’ mere creation of their media
platforms is no more culpable than the creation of email, cell phones,
or the internet generally. And defendants’ recommendation algorithms are merely part of the infrastructure through which all the content on their platforms is filtered. Moreover, the algorithms have been presented as agnostic as to the nature of the content. At bottom, the allegations here rest less on affirmative misconduct and more on passive nonfeasance. To impose aiding-and-abetting liability for passive nonfeasance, plaintiffs must make a strong showing of assistance and scienter. Plaintiffs fail to do so.
First, the relationship between defendants and the Reina attack is
highly attenuated. Plaintiffs make no allegations that defendants’ relationship with ISIS was significantly different from their arm’s
length, passive, and largely indifferent relationship with most users.
And their relationship with the Reina attack is even further removed,
given the lack of allegations connecting the Reina attack with ISIS’ use
of these platforms. Second, plaintiffs provide no reason to think that
defendants were consciously trying to help or otherwise participate in
the Reina attack, and they point to no actions that would normally
support an aiding-and-abetting claim.
Plaintiffs’ complaint rests heavily on defendants’ failure to act; yet
plaintiffs identify no duty that would require defendants or other communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends. Even if
such a duty existed in this case, it would not transform defendants’
distant inaction into knowing and substantial assistance that could
establish aiding and abetting the Reina attack. And the expansive
scope of plaintiffs’ claims would necessarily hold defendants liable as
having aided and abetted each and every ISIS terrorist act committed
anywhere in the world. The allegations plaintiffs make here are not
the type of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance to a series of
terrorist activities that could be described as aiding and abetting each
terrorist act by ISIS.
In this case, the failure to allege that the platforms here do more
than transmit information by billions of people—most of whom use the
platforms for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone,
or in public areas—is insufficient to state a claim that defendants
knowingly gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted
ISIS’ acts. A contrary conclusion would effectively hold any sort of
communications provider liable for any sort of wrongdoing merely for
knowing that the wrongdoers were using its services and failing to stop
them. That would run roughshod over the typical limits on tort liability and unmoor aiding and abetting from culpability>>.

La norma asseritamente violata dalle piattaforme era il 18 U.S. Code § 2333 (d) (2), secondo cui : <<2) Liability.— In an action under subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), as of the date on which such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism>>.

Trib. Roma sulla responsabilità del provider per materuiali caricati dagli utenti

Eleonora Rosati su IPKat ci notizia di (e ci linka a) due sentenza 2023 di Trib. Roma sez. spec. impr. sull’oggetto, entrambe tra RTI (attore) e una piattaforma di hosting files (Vimeo e V Kontacte).

Le domande sono respinte, alla luce del precedente della Corte di Giustizia Cyando del 2021.

Si tratta di :

– Trib. Roma 07.04.2023 n. 5700/2023, RG 59780/2017, Giudice rel. Picaro, RTI c. Vimeo;

– Trib. Roma 12.10.2023 n. 14531/2023, RG 4341/2027, giud. rel.: Cavaliere, RTI v. V Kontakte;

Per Rosati la lettura del pcedente europeo è errata.

Qui io solo evidenzio che i) civilisticamente non ha dignità giuridica da noi la distinzine tra responsabilità primaria e secondaria/indiretta nel caso di materiali illeciti caricati dagli utenti e ii) il safe harbour copre ogni responsabilità da esso conseguente.

Il punto più importante è che, per perdere il safe harbour, bisogna che il provider avesse contezza dell’esistenza degli specifici illeciti azionati, non di una loro generica possibilità.

Altra questione poi è quella del livello di dettaglio della denuncia al provider da parte del titolare dei diritti. Per il Trib. deve essere elevato: ed è esatto, stante il principio per cui onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit , regola processuale che va applicata anche alla denuncia de qua (nè c’è ragione per caricare il provider di attività faticose e incerte, a meno che tali non siano più per ragioni ad es. di avanzamento tecnologico).

Access provider responsabile per le violazioni di copyright dei suoi utenti: non vicariously bensì contributory

Così l’analitica e interessante Sony, Arista, Warner Bros ed altri v. Cox Communications , 4° circuito d’ appello, n. 21.-1168, 20.02.2024 , promossa dalle major dell’industria culturale contro un access provider:

<<A defendant may be held vicariously liable for a third party’s copyright infringement if the defendant “[1] profits directly from the infringement and [2] has a right and ability to supervise the direct infringer.”>>

– I –

Vicarious liability:

<<As these cases illustrate, the crux of the financial benefit inquiry is whether a causal relationship exists between the infringing activity and a financial benefit to the defendant.
If copyright infringement draws customers to the defendant’s service or incentivizes them to pay more for their service, that financial benefit may be profit from infringement. See, e.g., EMI Christian Music Grp., Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79, 99 (2d Cir. 2016).
But in every case, the financial benefit to the defendant must flow directly from the third party’s acts of infringement to establish vicarious liability. See Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930 & n.9; Nelson-Salabes, 284 F.3d at 513.
To prove vicarious liability, therefore, Sony had to show that Cox profited from its
subscribers’ infringing download and distribution of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted songs. It did not.
The district court thought it was enough that Cox repeatedly declined to terminate infringing subscribers’ internet service in order to continue collecting their monthly fees.
Evidence showed that, when deciding whether to terminate a subscriber for repeat infringement, Cox considered the subscriber’s monthly payments. See, e.g., J.A. 1499 (“This customer will likely fail again, but let’s give him one more chan[c]e. [H]e pays 317.63 a month.”). To the district court, this demonstrated the requisite connection between the customers’ continued infringement and Cox’s financial gain.
We disagree. The continued payment of monthly fees for internet service, even by repeat infringers, was not a financial benefit flowing directly from the copyright infringement itself. As Cox points out, subscribers paid a flat monthly fee for their internet access no matter what they did online. Indeed, Cox would receive the same monthly fees even if all of its subscribers stopped infringing. Cox’s financial interest in retaining subscriptions to its internet service did not give it a financial interest in its subscribers’ myriad online activities, whether acts of copyright infringement or any other unlawful acts.
An internet service provider would necessariily lose money if it canceled subscriptions, but that demonstrates only that the service provider profits directly from the sale of internet access. Vicarious liability, on the other hand, demands proof that the defendant profits directly from the acts of infringement for which it is being held accountable>>

– II –

<<We turn next to contributory infringement. Under this theory, “‘one who, with
knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another’ is liable for the infringement, too.”>>

<<The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed more than mere failure to prevent infringement. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue because it wanted to avoid losing revenue. Sony presented extensive evidence about Cox’s increasingly liberal policies and procedures for responding to reported infringement on its
network, which Sony characterized as ensuring that infringement would recur. And the jury reasonably could have interpreted internal Cox emails and chats as displaying contempt for laws intended to curb online infringement. To be sure, Cox’s antiinfringement efforts and its claimed success at deterring repeat infringement are also in the record. But we do not weigh the evidence at this juncture. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Cox materially contributed to copyright infringement occurring on its network and that its conduct was culpable. Therefore we may not disturb the jury’s verdict finding Cox liable for contributory copyright infringement>>

(notizia e link dal blogi di Eric Goldman)

Appello Roma conferma la responsabilità di Vimeo quale hosting provider attivo nella lite con RTI

Sta già quasi scemando l’attenzione verso il tema della responsabilità del provider per gli illeciti commessi dagli utenti tramite la sua piattaforma.

Francesca Santoro su Altalex ci notizia di Trib. Roma n. 6532/2023 del 12/10/2023, RG n. 5367/2019, Vimeo c. RTI, rel. Tucci.

La corte segue l’orientamento dominante basato sulla infruibilità dell’esenzione da parte dell’hosting cd attivo, fatto proprio da Cass. 7708 del 2019.

Che però non convince: la correponsabilità è regolata dalla’rt. 2055 cc per cui la colpa deve riguardare le singole opere azionate. A meno di aprire ad un dolo eventuale o colpa con previsione: ma va argomentato in tale senso.

Più interessnte è il cenno alle techniche di fingerpringing , DA INQAUDRASRE APPUNTO NELLA FAttispecie di responsabilità aquiliana. Solo che per far scattare l’esenzione ex art- 16 d lgs 70-2003 bisogna provare che era “effettivamente a conoscenza”: e non si può dire che, prima della diffida, Vimeo lo era o meglio che, adottando questa o quella misura, lo sarebbe certametne stato (misure adottabili ma fino a che livello di costo, poi? Tema difficile: è come per le misure di sicurezze a carico delle banche. Solo che queste rischiano un inadempimento verso i correntisti/controparti contrattuali, mentre Vimeo rischia l’illecito aquiliano: e c’è differenza tra i due casi per la soglia di costo, se -nell’ipotesi contrattuale -nulla è stato patutito ?).

Violazione di copyright (fornendo link a opere protette) da parte della piattaforma

Eric Goldman posta un commento (dandone pure il link, che segue, al testo) a US Appels Court del 10 circuito 16 ottobre 2023, caso No. 21-4128, Greer v. Moon e Kiwi Farms.

Si tratta di azione contro la pericolosissima piattaforma Kiwi Farms che nel caso permise l’upload da parte di terzi di materiale in violazione di copyright.

IL punto giuridico è se ricorra o meno un suo contributory infringement e in particolare l’elemento della material coontribution: cioè del terzo dei tre richiesti dalla giurisprudenza usa (“Mr. Greer had to plausibly allege: (1) his copyrighted work was directly infringed by a third party, (2) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “kn[ew] of the infringement,” and (3) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “cause[d] or materially contribute[d] to [third parties’] infringing activities.” Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204.9 We address each in turn“).

Nel caso specifico la piattafroma non solo non rimosse il materiale, anzi dichiarandolo apertamente, ma pure irrise la vittima (tra l’altro affetta da facial paralysis)

Ecco il passaggio:

<<When Mr. Greer discovered the book had been copied and placed in a Google Drive on Kiwi Farms, he “sent Mr. Moon requests to have his book removed . . . .” RI.18. Mr. Moon pointedly refused these requests. RI.18. In fact, instead of honoring the requests, Mr. Moon posted his email exchange with Mr. Greer to Kiwi Farms, belittling Mr. Greer’s attempt to protect his copyrighted material without resort to litigation. RI.18–19.
After the email request, Kiwi Farms users continued to upload audio recordings of Mr. Greer’s book, followed by digital copies of his song. When Mr. Greer discovered the song on Kiwi Farms, he sent Mr. Moon a takedown notice under the DMCA. Mr. Moon not only refused to follow the DMCA’s process for removal and protection of infringing copies, he “published [the] DMCA request onto [Kiwi Farms],” along with Mr. Greer’s “private contact information.” RI.22. Mr. Moon then “emailed Greer . . . and derided him for using a template for his DMCA request” and confirmed “he would not be removing Greer’s copyrighted materials.” RI.23. Following Mr. Moon’s mocking refusal to remove Mr. Greer’s book and his song, Kiwi Farms users “have continued to exploit Greer’s copyrighted material,” including two additional songs and a screenplay. RI.23>>.

Violazioni di copyright e vicarious liability di eBay

Il prof. Eric Goldman nel suo blog dà notizia del Trib. Del Maine Case 2:22-cv-00284-LEW del 28 luglio 2023, Okolita v. Amazon Walmart eBay , su allegata coviolazione da parte di dette piattaforme dei diritti sulle sue fotografie.

La domanda è rigettata tranne che in un punto che sarà approfondito : per la vicarious liability .

Ecco il passaggio:

<<Homing in on eBay’s right and ability to supervise and control infringing activity conducted on its online marketplace, Ms. Okolita alleges in her third claim that eBay is liable to her for failing to stop and/or prevent ongoing incidents of infringement of her copyrights.

To be vicariously liable for infringement, the facts need to demonstrate that eBay profited from the direct infringement of third-party users of its services “while
declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930. This final claim satisfies the plausibility standard. It does so because the law suggests the need for consideration of the qualitative nature of eBay’s response to Ms. Okolita’s takedown requests and eBay’s knowledge and understanding of the infringers’ conduct on its online marketplace. In the context of a motion to dismiss, a plausible claim is viable and an examination of the quality of eBay’s response to Ms. Okolita’s takedown requests is suited for a summary judgment record or trial. Moreover, to the extent eBay premises its motion to dismiss on the copyright safe harbor found in § 512(c), that entails a separate inquiry that arises in the context of an affirmative defense. Although the current record establishes that eBay has a § 512(c) policy (on paper) and that eBay did remove content that infringed Ms. Okolita’s copyright(s), I am not persuaded that a review of Ms.
Okolita’s FAC and its attachments makes it obvious that eBay is sheltered by the safe harbor>>.

Da noi una domanda analoga difficilemente avrebbe successo in base all’art. 6.2 del Digital serices act reg.- Ue 2022/2065 (2. Il paragrafo 1 non si applica se il destinatario del servizio agisce sotto l’autorità o il controllo del prestatore). Almeno in una interpretazione testuale: ma non ne è escluso affatto un esito opposto con interpretazione estensiva

Il 230 CDA salva Amazon dall’accusa di corresponsabile di recensioni diffamatorie contro un venditore del suo marketplace

La recensione diffamatoria (lievemente, per vero: sciarpa Burberry’s asseritamenye non autentica) non può vedere Amazon correposanbilòe perchè oepra il safe harbour citato.

Si tatta di infatti proprio del ruolo di publisher/speaker previsto dala legge. Nè può ravvisarsi un contributo attivo di Amazon nell’aver stabilito le regole della sua piattaforma, come vorrebbe il diffamato: il noto caso Roommates è malamente invocato.

Caso alquanto facile.

Così l‘appello del 11 circuito 12 giugn 2023, No. 22-11725, MxCall+1 c. Zotos + Amazon:

<<In that case, Roommates.com published a profile page for each subscriber seeking housing on its website. See id. at 1165. Each profile had drop-down menu on which subscribers seeking housing had to specify whether there are currently straight males, gay males, straight females, or lesbians living at the dwelling. This information was then displayed on the website, and Room-mates.com used this information to channel subscribers away from the listings that were not compatible with the subscriber’s prefer-ences. See id. The Ninth Circuit determined that Roommates.com was an information content provider (along with the subscribers seeking housing on the website) because it helped develop the in-formation at least in part. Id. (“By requiring subscribers to provide the information as a condition of accessing its service, and by providing a limited set of prepopulated answers, Room-mate[s.com] . . . becomes the developer, at least in part, of that in-formation.”).
Roommates.com is not applicable, as the complaint here al-leges that Ms. Zotos wrote the review in its entirety. See generally D.E. 1. Amazon did not create or develop the defamatory review even in part—unlike Roommates.com, which curated the allegedly discriminatory dropdown options and required the subscribers to choose one. There are no allegations that suggest Amazon helped develop the allegedly defamatory review.
The plaintiffs seek to hold Amazon liable for failing to take down Ms. Zotos’ review, which is exactly the kind of claim that is immunized by the CDA—one that treats Amazon as the publisher of that information. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). See also D.E. 1 at 5 (“Amazon . . . refused to remove the libelous statements posted by Defendant Zotos”). “Lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider [like Amazon] liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional edi-torial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content—are barred.” Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330. We therefore affirm the dismissal of the claims against Amazon>>.

(notizia e link dal sito del prof. Eric Goldman)

Differenza tra non applicabilità dello safe harbour e affermazione di responsabilità

La corte distrettuale del Wisconsin -western dist.- 31.03.2023, caso No. 21-cv-320-wmc, Hopson + Bluetype c. Google + Does 1 e 2, ha ben chiara la differenza tra i due concetti: che non sia invocabile il safe harbour non significa che ricorra in positivo responsabilità (anche se di fatto sarà probabile).

Non altrettanto chiara ce l’hanno alcuni nostri opininisti (dottrina e giurisprudenza).

Nel caso si trattava del safe harbour per il copyright in caso di procedura da notice and take down e in particolare da asserita vioalzione della procedura che avrebbe dovuto condurre google a “rimettere su” i materiali in precedenza “tirati giu” (§ 512.g) del DMCA).

<<Here, plaintiffs allege that defendant Google failed to comply with § 512(g)’s
strictures by: (1) redacting contact information from the original takedown notices; (2) failing to restore the disputed content within 10 to 14 business days of receiving plaintiffs’ counter notices; and (3) failing to forward plaintiffs’ counter notices to the senders of the takedown notices. As Google points out, however, its alleged failure to comply with § 512(g) does not create direct liability for any violation of plaintiffs’ rights. It merely denies Google a safe harbor defense should plaintiffs bring some other claim against the ISP for removing allegedly infringing material, such as a state contract or tort law claim. Martin, 2017 WL 11665339, at *3-4 (§ 512(g) does not create any affirmative cause of action; it
creates a defense to liability); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87 (2001) (holding plaintiffs may sue under a federal statue only where there is an express or implied private right of action). So, even if Google did not follow the procedure entitling it to a safe harbor defense in this case, the effect is disqualifying it from that defense, not creating liability under § 512(g) of the DMCA for violating plaintiffs’ rights.>>

Ancora nulla circa tale procedura in UE: gli artt. 16-17 del DSA reg. UE 2022/2065 non ne parlano (pare lasciarla all’autonomia contrattuale) e nemmeno lo fa la dir. specifica sul copyright, art. 17 dir. UE 790/2019.

(notizia e link dal sito del prof. Eric Goldman)

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright consistite in ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright date da ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma. Così US distr. court southern district of Florida 16 maggio 2023, Case No. 21-21698-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES, Athos overseas ltc c. Youtube-Google.

domanda attorea:

According to Plaintiff, Defendants are liable under direct and secondary infringement theories for YouTube’s failure to prevent the systematic re-posting of Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies to its platform. Plaintiff contends that YouTube has turned a blind eye to rampant infringement of Athos’ copyrights by refusing to employ proprietary video-detection software to block or remove from its website potentially infringing clips, and not just clips specifically identified by URL in Plaintiff’s DMCA takedown notices. In essence, Plaintiff argues that evidence of YouTube’s advanced video detection software, in conjunction with the thousands of takedown notices Athos has tendered upon YouTube, give rise to genuine issues of fact as to whether Defendants have forfeited the DMCA’s safe harbor protections.

Domanda rigettata: il provider non pèerde il suo safe harbour ex 17 US code § 512 per assenbza dell’element soggettivo:

<<Indeed, in Viacom the Second Circuit rejected identical arguments to the ones asserted here by Athos, which were presented in a lawsuit brought by various television networks against YouTube for the unauthorized display of approximately 79,000 video clips that appeared on the website between 2005 and 2008. Viacom, 676 F.3d at 26. Among other things, the Viacom plaintiffs argued that the manner in which YouTube employed its automated video identification tools—including liming its access certain users—removed the ISP from the safe harbor. Id. at 40–41. Yet, the court unequivocally rejected plaintiffs’ arguments, holding that the invocation of YouTube’s technology as a source of disqualifying knowledge must be assessed in conjunction with the express mandate of § 512(m) that “provides that safe harbor protection cannot be conditioned on ‘a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity[.]’”9 Viacom, 676 F.3d at 41 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1))>>

poi:

<<Plaintiff conflates two concepts that are separate and distinct in the context of YouTube’s copyright protection software: automated video matches and actual infringements. As explained by YouTube’s copyright management tools representative, software-identified video matches are not necessarily tantamount to copyright infringements. [D.E. 137-7, 74:21–25]. Rather, the software detects code, audio, or visual cues that may match those of a copyrighted work, and presents those matches to the owner for inspection. Thus, while YouTube systems may be well equipped to detect video matches, the software does not necessarily have the capacity to detect copyright infringements. See id. Further, the accuracy of these automatically identified matches depends on a wide range of factors and variable. [Id. at 75:1–10, 108:2–110:17, 113:3–114:25]. That is why users, not YouTube, are required to make all determinations as to the infringing nature of software selected matches. [Id.].
Second, Plaintiff does not point to any evidence showing that YouTube, through its employees, ever came into contact, reviewed, or interacted in any way with any of the purportedly identified video matches for which Athos was allegedly required to send subsequent DMCA takedown notices (i.e., the clips-in-suit). As explained by YouTube’s product manager, the processes of uploading, fingerprinting, scanning, and identifying video matches is fully automated, involving minimal to no human interaction in the part of YouTube. [Id. at 68:22–69:18, 118:17–119]. The record shows that upon upload of a video to YouTube, a chain of algorithmic processes is triggered, including the automated scanning and matching of potentially overlapping content. If the software detects potential matches, that list of matches is automatically directed towards the copyright owner, by being displayed inside the user’s YouTube interface. [Id. at 68:22–70:25]. Therefore, the record only reflects that YouTube does not rely on human involvement during this specific phase of the scanning and matching detection process, and Plaintiff does not proffer any evidence showing otherwise>>.

sintesi:

<<As the relevant case law makes clear, evidence of the technologies that ISPs independently employ to enhance copyright enforcement within their system cannot form the basis for ascribing disqualifying knowledge of unreported infringing items to the ISP. Such a conception of knowledge would contradict the plain mandate of § 512(m), “would eviscerate the required specificity of notice[,] . . . and would put the provider to the factual search forbidden by § 512(m).” Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 528. Thus, we find that Athos’ theory that specific knowledge of non-noticed infringing clips can be ascribed to Defendants by virtue of YouTube’s copyright management tools fails as a matter of law>>.

Notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman

L’embedding non costituisce comunicazione al pubblico però non permette la difesa del safe harbour ex § 512DMCA

Il giudice Barlow della Utah District Court, 2 maggio 2023, caso 2:21-cv-00567-DBB-JCB, decide un’interessante lite sull’embedding.

Attore è il gestore dei diritti su alcune foto eseguite da Annie Leibovitz. Convenuti sono i gestori di un sito che le aveva “riprodotte” con la tecnica dell’embedding (cioè non con riproduzine stabile sul proprio server).

Il giudice applica il c.d server test del noto caso Perfect 10 Inc. v. Google del 2006 così sintetizzato: <<Perfect 10, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether Google’s unauthorized display of thumbnail and full-sized images violated the copyright holder’s rights. The court first defined an image as a work “that is fixed in a tangible medium of expression . . . when embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer’s server (or hard disk, or other storage device).” The court defined “display” as an individual’s action “to show a copy . . ., either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process ….”>>.

Quindi rigetta la domanda nel caso dell’embedding sottopostogli :

<<The court finds Trunk Archive’s policy arguments insufficient to put aside the “server” test. Contrary to Trunk Archive’s claims, “practically every court outside the Ninth Circuit” has not “expressed doubt that the use of embedding is a defense to infringement.” Perfect 10 supplies a broad test. The court did not limit its holding to search engines or the specific way that Google utilized inline links. Indeed, Trunk Archive does not elucidate an appreciable difference between embedding technology and inline linking. “While appearances can slightly vary, the technology is still an HTML code directing content outside of a webpage to appear seamlessly on the webpage itself.” The court in Perfect 10 did not find infringement even though Google had integrated full-size images on its search results. Here, CBM Defendants also integrated (embedded) the images onto their website.(…) Besides, embedding redirects a user to the source of the content-in this case, an image hosted by a third-party server. The copyright holder could still seek relief from that server. In no way has the holder “surrender[ed] control over how, when, and by whom their work is subsequently shown.” To guard against infringement, the holder could take down the image or employ restrictions such as paywalls. Similarly, the holder could utilize “metadata tagging or visible digital watermarks to provide better protection.” (…)( In sum, Trunk Archive has not persuaded the court to ignore the “server” test. Without more, the court cannot find that CBM Defendants are barred from asserting the “embedding” defense. The court denies in part Trunk Archive’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.>>

Inoltre, viene negato il safe harbour in oggetto, perchè non ricorre il caso del mero storage su server proprio di materiali altrui, previsto ex lege. Infatti l’embedding era stato creato dai convenuti , prendendo i materiali da server altrui: quindi non ricorreva la passività ma l’attività , detto in breve

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman)