The Plaintiff sought the delisting of her artistic name “Meg Mellilo” from the Google search results. The judge stated that the right to be forgotten was not applicable, since the Plaintiff on her own will always related her image to erotism and pornography. During the lawsuit she did not demonstrate to be concern about her privacy, which makes unjustified the request to hide past conducts that are still perfomed at present time.
The Plaintiff requested Google to remove search results mentioning her earlier criminal conviction. The judge upheld the inviolability of private life and the right to be forgotten, noting that there was no current public interest in the information. In this regard, the court noted that criminal convictions should not continue to produce extrajudicial effects on individual rights after .
The Court ruled that content providers cannot be held liable for copyright violations committed by third parties in a case regarding whether the social networking site Orkut was responsible for copyright infringing user-generated content on its site. The Court ruled that Orkut’s does not profit from copyright infringement on the part of its users. The Court also ruled that Orkut could not be held responsible for links that users post to other pages containing copyright infringing material. See also CIS blog post.
Self-Regulation/Voluntary Agreement/Code of Conduct
By this agreement, signed between the Human Rights Secretary and the Brazilian Association of Internet (ABRANET), a non-profit organization that supports the development of the Internet in Brazil. On the second clause of the agreement, ABRANET commits to recommend all its members to include in their terms of service clauses allowing the termination of users accounts whenever the service is used to share child pornography images or to promote any form of discrimination.
The law introduces a liability exemption for Internet connection providers and the application of the safe harbor doctrine for other Internet application providers. Article 18 addresses the liability of Internet connection providers, grants an exception to those services regarding intermediary liability. It states that “the Internet connection provider shall not be subject to civil liability for content generated by third party”. Article 19, which addresses Internet application providers (excluding connection providers) states that, “in order to ensure freedom of expression and to prevent censorship, an Internet application provider shall only be subject to civil liability for damages caused by virtue of content generated by third parties if, after specific court order, it does not take action, according to the...
Decision held that the ISP is liable for not acting to takedown all copies of a video (parodying a commercial of the motorbike company Dafra) that was uploaded several times by multiple users, regardless if there was not a precise URL indication of such videos. In particular, the SCJ noted that "(…) this special appeal is limited to the remaining obligation regarding those videos that contain the insulting title, whether they have been precisely appointed by the authors (with the mention of the URL's), or not, so long as they exist on the site with that precise ‘title’, and, after the provider has been formally notified of their existence. … there is reference about an expert testimony in the case records in which it was verified by the technical feasibility of controlling videos on YouTube, having the Court Expert...