Show in map
Administrative Decision

Plaintiff X v. Google

DPA Procedure (Expediente 012-2015-PTT)
This case in Peru is about reports associating the plaintiff to criminal procedures from which he has been acquitted. After an initial ruling of the Peruvian DPA (Dirección General de Protección de Datos Personales) determining Google Peru must generally delist all content associating the plaintiff to the news related to the criminal matters mentioned in the complaint. Google appealed within the DPA’s administrative procedure. The Peruvian DPA upheld its initial ruling, but indicated precisely the 16 URLs that should be removed by the search engine. In the decision, the DPA asserted that: Google Peru was under jurisdiction of the Peruvian Law, and therefore, the Peruvian DPA; By indexing search results based on a name query, Google Peru was processing data and should thus be considered a data controller in the terms of...
International Agreement

Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter [May 16, 2014 version of the consolidated negotiating text for the Intellectual Property Chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership]

Peru is participating in the negotiation of an international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligation or a notice-and-takedown system with the prospect of terminating subscriber Internet access and content blocking.

General Resources - Peru

Comisión de Derechos de Autor del Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y la Propiedad Intelectual Peruvian Copyright Administrative Authority at the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) Hiperderecho, www.hiperderecho.org Miguel Morachimo (Hiperderecho), Lesson from Peru: A Tough Start to Regulating ISP Liability
International Agreement

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Peru and the United Sates, signed on April 12, 2006 (Chapter 16, Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 16.11, 29. Limitations on Liability for Service Providers)

(1) This FTA has miscellaneous rules concerning IP Rights and ISP Liability, which resemble closely to the US DMCA provisions. However, the national implementation of intermediate liability rules for services providers is still pending with no clear schedule. (2) This Agreement also includes a side letter with particular rules regarding the information that notifications must include.

Legislative Decree 822 Copyright Law

providing that (1) no authority or private party may authorise the use of a copyrighted work or any other work protected under Copyright Law or assist in its use if the user doesn’t have previous and written authorization from the copyright holder, except in the cases established by law, under risk of solidarity liability (article 39); (2) the owner, conducer or representative in charge of establishments where copyrighted works are communicated will answer in solidarity with the event’s organiser for any infringement that may happen on those premises (article 116).
International Agreement

Andean Community Decision No. 351 Common Provisions on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

This decision does not specifically establish provisions regarding intermediary liability on the Internet. However, Article 54 may find application in this context, where it states that “No authority or person, whether natural person or legal entity, may authorize the use of a work, performance, phonographic production or broadcast, or endorse his support to such use, if the user does not have the express prior authorization of the owner of the rights or his representative. In the event of non-compliance, that entity or person shall be jointly liable.” This is a Community legislation covering Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.