Who's author, editor and publisher in user-generated content? Applying traditional media concepts to UGC providers

Abstract

Since its appearance in 2005, user-generated content (UGC) has grown explosively. This vast new trend that allows users to play an active role in the publication of content creates many great opportunities. However, it also opens doors for malicious intent. The difficulties to combat illegal or otherwise harmful material constitute major challenges for the further development of UGC. In a complicated system involving many different actors, who to address when illegal or harmful material is found online? Who can be held liable for damage? This paper aims to discuss the conceptual framework for legal liability for UGC, by examining normative definitions and underlying rationales of existing liability models and by comparing the roles of traditional actors in the information value chain, on the one hand, and new intermediaries, on the other hand. The paper aspires to formulate some assessments in view of a clearer definition of the scope of legal liability of new UGC intermediaries for illegal and harmful content disseminated via their platforms.

Keywords:

• liability
• user-generated content (UGC)
• platform provider

Notes

It is worthwhile to note that the difference between UGC and ‘user-created content’, which is limited to content that was actually created by users, requiring a certain amount of creative effort, outside of professional routines and practices. OECD Report: Participative Web and User-Created Content, 2007, available at http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3343,en_2649_34223_39428648_1_1_1_1,00.html

IDATE, TNO, IViR, ‘User-Created Content: Supporting a Participative Information Society’, Study for the European Commission (DG INFSO), December 2008. The study has been published on the website of IViR, available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/User_created_content.pdf

Sources: Technorati, Flickr, YouTube, Alexa, Comscore, internetworldstats.com; McCann, Power to the people – Social Media Tracker Wave 3 (March 2008) and Google (2009). Numbers are approximate.

P. Martens, Mediarecht voor journalisten (Antwerp: Garant, 2005), 17, 26–7.

Court of First Instance, Brussels, 25 April 2000, Auteurs & Media (2000): 466.

Constitutional Court, 22 March 2006, discussed in E. Brewaeys, ‘Recente rechtspraak van het Arbitragehof over persvrijheid’, Rechtskundig Weekblad (2006–07): 1342–47.

Criminal Court, Mons, 13 February 2007, note D. Voorhoof, ‘Is de publicatie van een strafbare meningsuiting via internet een drukpersmisdrijf?’, Auteurs & Media (2007): 178; Court of Appeal, Mons, 14 May 2008, note Q. van Enis, ‘Le délit de presse sur internet: la cohérence et rien de plus?’, Journal des Tribunaux (2009): 47–50. See also Criminal Court, Brussels, 22 December 1999, Auteurs & Media (2000): 134; Court of Appeal, Brussels, 27 June 2000, Auteurs & Media (2001): 142; Court of Appeal, Antwerp, 9 February 2006, Auteurs & Media (2006): 204.

Since the first state reform in Belgium in 1970–71, radio and television broadcasting fall under the competence of the Flemish, French and German speaking (cultural) Communities. This competence includes not only content-related aspects, but also organizational, economic and technical aspects (such as the attribution of frequency licences). All three Communities have consequently adopted their own broadcasting laws over the last three decades, which have been amended several times. The federal state has only remained competent to regulate the bi-lingual broadcasting activities in the area of Brussels Capital. The broadcasting rules that are currently applicable in Flanders (and which cover also on-demand audiovisual services) can be found in the new ‘Mediadecreet’ of 2009: ‘Decreet betreffende radio-omroep en televisie van 27 maart 2009’, published in the Belgisch Staatsblad, 30 April 2009 and amended by the ‘Decreet’ of 24 July 2009. In the French Community, broadcasting (in the broad sense) is regulated by the ‘Décret sur les services de médias audiovisuals du 27 février 2003’ and the ‘Décret portant statut de la Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté francaise (RTBF) du 14 juillet 1997’, specifically applicable to the RTBF (the public broadcaster of the French Community).

Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel, 10 November 2004, Auteurs & Media 2 (2005): 171–73.

Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, Official Journal L332/27, 18 December 2007.

W. Schulz and S. Heilmann, Iris Special: Editorial Responsibility, ed. S. Nikoltchev (Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2008). See also M. Ariño, ‘AVMS Implementation in the UK’, Lecture in the Institute for European Studies Spring Series ‘Rethinking European Media and Communications Policy’ at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, 19 March 2008, who points to the fact that ATVOD members (i.e. the British Association for Television on Demand) include IPTV platform providers, such as BT and Tiscali (www.atvod.co.uk/).

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), Official Journal L178/1, 17 July 2000.

Wet van 11 maart 2003 betreffende bepaalde juridische aspecten van de diensten van de informatiemaatschappij, Belgisch Staatsblad 17 March 2003.

On this topic see also G. Somers and J. Dumortier, ‘Juridische aspecten van Web 2.0 – online informatie en aansprakelijkheid’ (‘Content aggregation, content locating in user-generated content’), Cahier du Juriste 2 (2009): 48–50, 55–56.

B. Frydman and I. Rorive, ‘Regulating Internet Content through Intermediaries in Europe and the USA’, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 23, no. 1 (2002): 41–59.

For a discussion on the term ‘hoster’ (hébergeur) see E. Montero, ‘Les responsabilités liées au web 2.0’, Revue du droit des technologies de l'information no. 32 (2008): 368–73. Crucial for the qualification as a hosting service is the fact that the content was provided by the user and transmitted or stocked at his request. Where in the Web 1.0 this was understood in a purely technical way (hosting was the activity of materially stocking third party's content on his server), in the Web 2.0 ‘hosting’ is understood in a functional way (it can comprise all forms of stocking, including on someone else's server).

First Report of the Commission on the application of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), no. 67–9.

TGI Paris Summary Proceedings, 22 June 2007, Lafesse/Myspace; and Court of Appeal, Paris, 7 June 2006, Tiscali, available at www.legalis.net

TGI Paris, 15 April 2008, Lafesse/Dailymotion; TGI Paris, 13 July 2007, Nord Ouest Production/Dailymotion; and TGI Paris, 19 October 2007, Google Inc./Zadig Productions. Available at www.legalis.net

See also Montero, ‘Les responsabilités’, 373–9; N. Jondet, ‘The Silver Lining in Dailymotion's Copyright Cloud’, 19 April 2008, available at www.juriscom.net

TGI Paris, 13 July 2007, Nord Ouest Production/Dailymotion, available at www.legalis.net

TGI Paris Summary Proceedings, 22 June 2007, Lafesse/Myspace, available at www.legalis.net

TGI Paris, 19 October 2007, Google Inc./Zadig Productions, available at www.legalis.net See also TGI Paris Summary Proceedings, 26 March 2008, Olivier Martinez/Bloobox Net. Available at www.juriscom.net; TGI Nanterre Summary Proceedings, 28 February 2008, Olivier C./Eric D.; and TGI Nanterre Summary Proceedings, 28 February 2008, Olivier D./Aadsoft Com. Available at www.legalis.net. In these cases the platform providers were qualified as editors because of the presentation structure consisting of RSS links to other websites.

Court of Appeal, Paris, 7 June 2006, Tiscali.

Jondet, ‘The Silver Lining in Dailymotion's’. This is an application of the functional understanding of the term ‘hoster’, cf. Montero, ‘Les responsabilités’, 368.

TGI Paris Summary Proceedings, 7 January 2009, Lafesse/Youtube (legalis.net); TGI Paris, 14 November 2008, Lafesse/Youtube (legalis.net); C. George, ‘Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content: Legal Challenges in the New Frontier’, Journal of Information, Law and Technology, available at http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2007_2/george_scerri