JURISDICTION REPORT: FRANCE
LIABILITY OF ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS
Aurélia Marie Cabinet Beau de Loménie
Several recent court decisions have clarified the nature, in law, of the activities of service providers on the Internet, and their related obligations.
In an unprecedented case, the Paris Court of Appeal has held that eBay France and eBay Europe were not performing any acts of sale by public auction. In its judgment of May 25, 2012, the court held that:
• In view of the absence of representation of the seller by eBay and the active role kept by the seller in the sale, eBay entities were not acting as an agent of the seller; and
• In view that the seller may choose a bidder other than the highest one, the sale was not made by auction.
According to the court, eBay’s activities thus merely constitute brokerage, ie, putting persons willing to enter into an agreement in touch.
In a judgment of May 29, 2012, the Paris First Instance Court took a stance on the nature, in law, of the activities of another major actor in the Internet market. In this case, a French TV channel held YouTube responsible for several items of content put online by users of the YouTube website which infringed its rights.
The channel based its claims on several services offered by YouTube which, it says, demonstrate an organisation and a control by YouTube of the content put online by the users of the website amounting to editing services, and not merely hosting.
Te court refused to designate YouTube as providing ‘editing services’.
As regards the possibility of searching content by category, offered by YouTube, the court considered that this could not be regarded as organisation or control of the content in the absence of advertising of the most attractive content and of any a priori or a posteriori control by YouTube of the content put online by users.
For this reason, the court made clear that Article 9.4 of the YouTube terms of service, which specifies that “YouTube has the right (but not the obligation) to decide whether the contributions respect the requirements related to the content as specified in the present terms of service and to suppress any contribution which would violate such terms”, does not mean that YouTube controls the content, but only expresses the obligation for YouTube to withdraw content which is obviously unlawful, as required by Law No. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004.
In the same way, the court considered that the provisions of Article 10 of the YouTube terms of service, which specify that YouTube benefits from an automatic assignment of rights on the content put online by users, does
“BY ACTING AS A BROKER—AND NOT AS A SELLER BY PUBLIC AUCTION—EBAY DOES NOT HAVE TO REQUEST ANY OFFICIAL APPROVAL.”
not characterise organisation or control of the content by YouTube in the absence of any use by YouTube of the content put online by the users.
Finally, the court considered that the offer by YouTube of advertising space in relation to content put online was not incompatible with the activity of ‘hosting’ in the absence of specification by the advertiser of the content of the files put online by Internet users.
The court concluded that the services offered by YouTube can be regarded simply as hosting services.
Tese cases remind us that the legal categorisation of the services provided by service providers in the information society has a determining influence on the obligations and the regime governing liability of such companies.
Thus, by acting as a broker—and not as a seller by public auction— eBay does not have to request any official approval.
In the same way, its status as host—not editor—enables YouTube to benefit from the derogatory regime of liability established by the Law No. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004, implementing the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC in France. According to this regime, the host incurs liability only if it does not react promptly to withdraw unlawful content which is expressly notified to it.
Such a notification must respect a specific formalism and specify different types of information. As can be seen from a last decision of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, case law is relatively demanding regarding the type of information which must be provided to the host in a notification of allegedly unlawful content.
Te Bordeaux Court of Appeal considered indeed that the host had not been validly notified of the unlawful acts in the absence of indication of the profession, the address, the nationality and the date and place of birth of the person having notified the information to the host (Bordeaux Court of Appeal, May 10, 2012).
In the absence of a valid notification, the host could not be liable despite the late withdrawal of the unlawful content.
Aurélia Marie is a partner at Cabinet Beau de Loménie. She can be contacted at:
amarie@bdl-ip.com
100 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128