(1) The associations for the defense of freedom of information as well as those representing web-tv, micro web-tv, micromedia hyperlocal, blogs and video blogs, information portals, aggregators and video companies active in the online press are entitled to challenge AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement (AGCOM Regulation). (2) The AGCOM Regulation does not primarily enforce copyright but any failure to comply with an order of the Authority. Therefore, this order cannot be considered illegitimate for (a) AGCOM's incompetence to introduce a para-judicial procedure to enforce copyright or (b) inconsistency between this procedure and the rules of law which entrust to the ordinary courts the enforcement of copyright, or even, for (c) breach of the principle of the judge previously ascertained by law in so...
Reversing en banc a previous judgment of the same Tribunal of May 5, 2014 (see below). This time, the Court accepted Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement of certain South American soap operas that users had uploaded to YouTube. In this case, Google complied with its notice and take down policy, and the videos were removed as soon as the specific URLs were provided by Delta TV. Nevertheless, the Court agreed with Delta TV’s claims, and ordered Google and YouTube to remove the infringing videos and to prevent further uploads of the same content through the use of its Content ID software (YouTube’s system for automatic detection of uploaded videos that infringe copyright) using as a reference the URLs provided by Delta TV. The Court stressed that these proactive...
Rejecting Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against YouTube for copyright infringement on certain South American soap operas which had been uploaded by YouTube users. Delta TV sued Google and YouTube and filed for an interim injunction asking the Court to order Google to remove the infringing videos, prohibiting further violations and imposing a penalty of EUR 1,000 per day for each violation of the Court’s order. However, the Court rejected the request on the basis that (i) there is no obligation on the part of Google and YouTube, as hosting providers, to assess the actual ownership of the copyrights in videos uploaded by individual users, (ii) the only liability hypothetically attributable to Google and YouTube relates to cases where they are specifically informed of the unlawfulness of the uploaded videos...
Upholding the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment and concluding a long dispute between the no-profit association Vividown and Google. (1) Vividown brought a lawsuit against Google because it did not promptly remove a video from YouTube. The video portrayed a minor with the Down syndrome bullied by his classmates. (2) For the Privacy Code article 167 “Any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause harm to another, processes personal data (unlawfully) … shall be punished, if harm is caused, by imprisonment for between six and eighteen months or, if the offence consists in data communication or dissemination, by imprisonment for between six and twenty-four months, unless the offence is more serious”. (3) The first trial found Google guilty for “not preventing the crime”; the Court’s...
The AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement vested the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would not target direct infringers but rather Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For a summary in English, see CIS blog post 1; see also CIS blog posts 2 and 3.
Vesting the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would not target direct infringers but rather Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For a summary in English, see CIS blog post 1; see also CIS blog post 2, 3