Inthe 2007 lawsuit Viacom et. al. v. YouTube, content-owners accused video-clearinghouse YouTube (later purchased by Google) of copyright infringement. YouTube permitted users to post copyrighted material such as movies and television show clips without any attribution or permission from the copyright owners like Viacom. In 2010, the District Court in the 2nd Circuit ruled that YouTube (and therfore parent company Google) were protected by a "safe harbor" that shields mere web hosts from being held liable for the wrongs of thier clients. YouTube escaped almost all liability. The rule coming out of the case was that rights-owners needed to police infringement aggressively and specifically. It was not enough to request that a web host remove "all episodes of my TV show," owners had to literally present a list of each instance of infringement, putting a large burden on rights-owners.
Last week, the Appellate court reversed in part, saying that it was not a matter of course that YouTube falls under the safe harbor because it offers several services that bring it out of the "mere web host" category. The case has been remanded for further fact-finding at the District level.
What this means for your website: don't get too comfortable. When Viacom v. YouTube was decided, it touched off a firestorm debate about whether a host server has either the technology or the obligation to screen its user-contributed data. While it may seem like all websites that only allow users to contribute content might be home-free under the safe harbor, last week's reversal should give web hosts pause. There are now some clear areas, namely whether the host company "should know better," that might increase rights-owners' ability to coopt the web host in policing of thier marks. This would shift some of the burden onto web hosts, increasing thier costs to remove infringing content and potentially give the hosts liability for infringement
Last week, the Appellate court reversed in part, saying that it was not a matter of course that YouTube falls under the safe harbor because it offers several services that bring it out of the "mere web host" category. The case has been remanded for further fact-finding at the District level.
What this means for your website: don't get too comfortable. When Viacom v. YouTube was decided, it touched off a firestorm debate about whether a host server has either the technology or the obligation to screen its user-contributed data. While it may seem like all websites that only allow users to contribute content might be home-free under the safe harbor, last week's reversal should give web hosts pause. There are now some clear areas, namely whether the host company "should know better," that might increase rights-owners' ability to coopt the web host in policing of thier marks. This would shift some of the burden onto web hosts, increasing thier costs to remove infringing content and potentially give the hosts liability for infringement