Liability in FR. Liability in Italy for defamation. TripAdvisor negative comments. Comparative decisions on SE liabilty. ISP liability in India. Defamation rules in Australia. Liability for defamation in US. Liability for Hyperlink in Canada. Liability in HK. The Google Dilemma-Grimmelmann. G Ordered to delete diffamation in Japan. Estonian news website liable for readers’ offensive comments.
Publishers beware: European Court of Human Rights imposes liability for anonymous defamatory comments. However, in the present case, material for which the website was held liable had not been the subject of the notice and take-down mechanism. It was taken down promptly ("without delay") when the victim notified the website. That contrasts with the situation in the aforementioned Godfrey case.
Interestingly, there is not much comment from the ECHR on Delfi.ee role as an intermediary. The Estonian court's decision that the defendant was not an Article 14 hosting provider is contrary to the CJEU's holding in Sabam v Netlog. In this case Netlog was ruled to be a hosting service within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 in that it owns a social networking platform and stores information provided by the users on its servers. The role of intermediaries was not explored by the ECHR and they don't seem to have assigned any value to Delphi.ee operating in this role - other than a general remark about the importance of freedom of the press, which is a substantially different matter.
Cyberleagle: Who will sort out the Delfi mess? The Court’s approach to the responsibilities of internet publishers appears to challenge the principles underpinning the intermediary liability provisions of the EU ECommerce Directive. The Court declined to question the Estonian courts’ narrow interpretation of the ECommerce Directive, even though it was in almost all respects at odds with subsequent EU Court of Justice decisions cited to the Court. The result is a mess of epic proportions, which it is to be hoped the Grand Chamber will have the opportunity to sort out if an appeal reference is made. Failing that a pending reference to the CJEU in a Cyprus case, Papasavvas, may enable the EU Court of Justice to weigh in.
The internet news site Delfi published up to 330 articles a day. 185 comments were made about a particular article on the day of publication and the following day. The claimant then sued Delfi for damages for defamation. eBay also establishes that it is wrong to approach hosting protection as a broad overall status. Wikipedia NOT liable for defamatory contents. List of results. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011. eDate Advertising GmbH v X (C-509/09) and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited (C-161/10). References for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany and Tribunal de grande instance de Paris - France. Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2000/31/EC - Publication of information on the internet - Adverse effect on personality rights - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Law applicable to information society services.
Joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10. Reports of Cases Links to the texts. Documents. Language of document : Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (Cyprus) lodged on 27 March 2013 – Sotiris Papasavvas v O Phileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis (Case C-291/13) Language of the case: Greek Referring court Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias Parties to the main proceedings Claimant: Sotiris Papasavvas Defendants: O Phileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis Questions referred Bearing in mind that the laws of the Member States on defamation affect the capacity to provide information services by electronic means both at national level and within the European Union, might those laws be regarded as restrictions on the provision of information services for the purposes of applying Directive 2000/31/EC?
A newspaper that operates a free website on which the online version of the printed newspaper, with all its articles and advertisements, is posted in pdf format or another similar electronic format; Liability of Internet Service Providers and Website Hosts for Defamation. Given that user anonymity is often the norm in internet forums, ISPs or other intermediaries make attractive defendants as they are more readily identifiable and would generally be perceived as having deeper pockets. In the recent case of Oriental Press Group Limited & Others v Fevaworks Solutions Limited (HCA 2140 of 2008), the Hong Kong High Court found the host of a popular online forum liable on one occasion for failing to remove defamatory statements posted by its subscribers.
This landmark case in Hong Kong extends the legal principles and rules that regulate information communicated in oral and printed forms to digital communication in the realm of cybersphere. The case raises interesting issues as to whether a website host (and a fortiori an ISP) is a publisher or subordinate distributor, and if the latter, whether a defence of innocent dissemination applies. ISPs and website hosts are not publishers Defense of Innocent Dissemination Copyright Angela Wang & Co.
Role_and_responsibility_of_the_internet_intermediaries_final.