Category: Social Media

Metadata by TLF: Issue 16 (15th July to 31st July)

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

Union Consumer Affairs Minster issues E-Commerce Rules to shift the focus onto consumer protection

In an increasingly globalised world, major retail companies like Amazon have reached even the most inaccessible places. The consumers that are exposed to e-commerce companies can only be protected in the presence of increased accountability. The newly issued E-Commerce Rules set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority to police companies that violate consumer rights. Misleading ads and unfair trade practices are prevented as e-retailers have to mandatorily disclose return, refund, warranty, exchange, guarantee, delivery and grievance redressal details. Henceforth, prices of products cannot be manipulated to produce unreasonable profits for companies. These rules apply to retailers either registered in India or abroad.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 14 (15th June to 30th June)

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

India bans 59 Chinese Apps including Tik-Tok

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced in a press release on 29th June that it had invoked its powers under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to ban 59 Chinese applications. The Indian government cited ‘raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians’ as reasons behind the ban. The move comes after a border skirmish with China resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. Regardless of the cybersecurity concerns cited in the press release, speculation remains rife over whether the ban was a retaliatory measure in light of the worsening geopolitical situation between India and China. India is a huge market for Chinese apps, particularly for the video-sharing platform Tik-Tok which had previously been banned in February 2019 for encouraging the spread of pornography and ‘cultural degradation’. The ban was ultimately lifted after assurances by Tik-Tok that it had the tools to censor explicit content. The current ban has been called a purely political decision and criticised for its procedural impropriety and its excessive restriction on dissemination of online content.

Read more

Delhi HC’s order in Swami Ramdev v. Facebook: A hasty attempt to win the ‘Hare and Tortoise’ Race

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This post has been authored by Aryan Babele, a final year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab and a Research Assistant at Medianama.

On 23rd October 2019, the Delhi HC delivered a judgment authorizing Indian courts to issue “global take down” orders to Internet intermediary platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter for illegal content as uploaded, published and shared by users. The Delhi HC delivered the judgment on the plea filed by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. requesting the global takedown of certain videos which were alleged to be defamatory in nature.

Read more

The TLF Newsletter: Issue 6

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

Delhi HC orders social media platforms to take down sexual harassment allegations against artist

The Delhi High Court ordered Facebook, Google and Instagram to remove search result, posts and any content containing allegations of sexual harassment against artist Subodh Gupta. These include blocking/removal of social media posts, articles and Google Search result links. The allegations were made about a year ago, by an unknown co-worker of Gupta on an anonymous Instagram account ‘Herdsceneand’. These allegations were also posted on Facebook and circulated by news reporting agencies. An aggrieved Subodh Gupta then filed a civil defamation suit, stating these allegations to be false and malicious. Noting the seriousness of the allegations, the Court passed an ex-parte order asking the Instagram account holder, Instagram, Facebook and Google to take down this content. The Court has now directed Facebook to produce the identity of the person behind the account ‘Herdsceneand’ in a sealed cover. 

Further Reading:

  1. Trisha Jalan, Right to be Forgotten: Delhi HC orders Google, Facebook to remove sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta from search results, Medianama (1 October 2019).
  2. Akshita Saxen, Delhi HC Orders Facebook, Google To Take Down Posts Alleging Sexual Harassment by Artist Subodh Gupta [Read Order], LiveLaw.in (30 September 2019).
  3. Aditi Singh, Delhi HC now directs Facebook to reveal identity of person behind anonymous sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta,  Bar & Bench (10 October 2019).
  4. The Wire Staff, Subodh Gupta Files Rs. 5-Crore Defamation Suit Against Anonymous Instagram Account, The Wire (1 October 2019)
  5. Dhananjay Mahapatra, ‘MeToo’ can’t become a ‘sullying you too’ campaign: Delhi HC, Times of India (17 May 2019).
  6. Devika Agarwal, What Does ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Mean in the Context of the #MeToo Campaign, Firstpost (19 June 2019).

Petition filed in Kerala High Court seeking a ban on ‘Telegram’

A student from National Law School of India, Bengaluru filed a petition in the Kerala high court seeking a ban on the mobile application – Telegram. The reason cited for this petition is that the app has no  checks and balances in place. There is no government regulation, no office in place and the lack of encryption keys ensures that the person sending the message can not be traced back. It was only in June this year that telegram refused to hand over the chat details of the ISIS module to the National Investigation Agency.  As compared to apps such as Watsapp, Telegram has a greater degree of secrecy. One of the features Telegram boasts of is the ‘secret chat’ version which notifies users if someone has taken a screenshot, disables the user from forwarding of messages etc. Further, there are fewer limits on the number of people who can join a channel and this makes moderation on the dissemination of information even more difficult. It is for this reason that telegram is dubbed as the ‘app of choice’ for many terrorists. It is also claimed that the app is used for transmitting vulgar and obscene content including child pornography. Several countries such as Russia and Indonesia have banned this app due to safety concerns. 

Further Reading:

  1. Soumya Tiwari, Petition in Kerala High Court seeks ban on Telegram, cites terrorism and child porn, Medianama (7 October 2019).
  2. Brenna Smith, Why India Should Worry About the Telegram App, Human Rights Centre (17 February 2019).
  3. Benjamin M., Why Are So Many Countries Banning Telegram?, Dogtown Media (11 May 2019).
  4. Vlad Savov, Russia’s Telegram ban is a big convoluted mess, The Verge (17 April 2018).
  5. Megha Mandavia, Kerala High Court seeks Centre’s views on plea to ban Telegram app, The Economic Times (4 October 2019). 
  6. Livelaw News Network, Telegram Promotes Child Pornography, Terrorism’ : Plea In Kerala HC Seeks Ban On Messaging App, Livelaw.in (2 October 2019).

ECJ rules that Facebook can be ordered to take down content globally

In a significant ruling, the European Court of Justice ruled that Facebook can be ordered to take down posts globally, and not just in the country that makes the request. It extends the reach of the EU’s internet-related laws beyond its own borders, and the decision cannot be appealed further. The ruling stemmed from a case involving defamatory comments posted on the platform about an Austrian politician, following which she demanded that Facebook erase the original comments worldwide and not just from the Austrian version worldwide. The decision raises the question of jurisdiction of EU laws, especially at a time when countries are outside the bloc are passing their own laws regulating the matter.

Further Reading:

  1. Adam Satariano, Facebook Can Be Forced to Delete Content Worldwide, E.U.’s Top Court Rules, The New York Times (3 October 2019).
  2. Chris Fox, Facebook can be ordered to remove posts worldwide, BBC News (3 October 2019).
  3. Makena Kelly, Facebook can be forced to remove content internationally, top EU court rules, The Verge (3 October 2019).
  4. Facebook must delete defamatory content worldwide if asked, DW (3 October 2019).

USA and Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement

The Digital Trade Agreement was signed by USA and Japan on October 7, 2019. The Agreement is an articulation of both the nations’ stance against data localization. The trade agreement cemented a cross-border data flow. Additionally, it allowed for open access to government data through Article 20. Articles 12 and 13 ensures no restrictions of electronic data across borders. Further, Article 7 ensures that there are no customs on digital products which are electronically transmitted. Neither country’s parties can be forced to share the source code while sharing the software during sale, distribution, etc. The first formal articulation of the free flow of digital information was seen in the Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT), which was a key feature of the Osaka Declaration on Digital Economy. The agreement is in furtherance of the Trump administration’s to cement America’s standing as being tech-friendly, at a time when most other countries are introducing reforms to curb the practices of internet giants like Google and Facebook, and protect the rights of the consumers. American rules, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields companies from any lawsuits related to content moderation. America, presently appears to hope that their permissive and liberal laws will become the framework for international laws. 

Further Reading:

  1.     Aditi Agarwal, USA, Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement, stand against data localisation, Medianama (9 October 2019).
  2.     U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement Text, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).
  3.   Paul Wiseman, US signs limited deal with Japan on ag, digital trade,Washington Post (8 October 2019).
  4.   FACT SHEET U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).
  5. David McCabe and Ana Swanson, U.S. Using Trade Deals to Shield Tech Giants From Foreign Regulators, The New York Times (7 October 2019).

Read more

The TLF Newsletter: Issue 5

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

RBI Releases Discussion Paper on Guidelines for Payment Gateways and Payment Aggregators

The RBI on 17th September released a discussion paper on comprehensive guidelines for the activities of payment aggregators and payment gateway providers. It was acknowledged that payment aggregators and payment gateways form a crucial link in the flow of transactions and therefore need to be regulated. The RBI has suggested that these entities be governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 which requires all  ‘payment systems’ (as defined in the Act) to be authorised by the RBI. Additionally, different frameworks have been proposed for regulating payment aggregators and payment gateways, and full and direct regulation has been discussed in detail. This would entail payment aggregators and gateway services to fully comply with any guidelines issued by the RBI.

Further Reading:

  1. Trisha Jalan, RBI proposes regulation, licensing of payment aggregators and gateways, Medianama (18 September 2019).
  2. Full regulation by RBI will require payment gateways, aggregators to be incorporated in India, The Hindu (18 September 2019).
  3. Shayan Ghosh, RBI could bring payment aggregators, gateways under direct supervision, livemint (18 September 2019).
  4. RBI paper on payment gateways: Maintain Rs. 100 crore net worth or wind up operations, moneycontrol, (19 September 2019).

Twitter removes more than ten thousand accounts across six countries

Political turmoil and instability in countries is majorly aggravated by the internet and various portals online. In light of this crisis, Twitter has decided to remove more than ten thousand accounts across six countries. These accounts were found to be actively spreading unrest in countries which were already in the wrath of a political turmoil. Twitter removed more than four thousand accounts in United Arab Emirates and China, around thousand in Ecuador, and more than two hundred in Spain.

Twitter has been making an active effort since the past one year to identify and remove accounts which were agitating sensitive issues in countries facing crisis. Online portals even have the power to sway the election processes in Democratic countries. In order to curb these impending threats, Twitter has been removing certain accounts on its platform. Even though thousands of new accounts are created everyday and several people have termed this removal process as arduous and never ending, these measures have to be taken.

Further Reading:

  1. Trisha Jalan, Twitter removes 10,000 accounts from six countries for political information operations, Medianama (23 September 2019).
  2. Ingrid Lunder, Twitter discloses another 10,000 accounts suspended for fomenting political discord globally, Tech crunch (20 September, 2019).
  3. Abrar-al-Hiti, Twitter reportedly removes over 10,000 accounts that discourage voting, Cnet (2 November 2018).
  4. Christopher Bing, Twitter deletes over 10,000 accounts, that sought to discourage voting, Reuters (3 November 2018).

California passes AB 5 Bill requiring business to hire workers as employees

California legislators approved a landmark Bill on 11 September, 2019 that has the potential to disrupt the gig economy. The Bill known as “AB 5” requires companies like Uber and Lyft to treat contract workers as employees, which gives hundreds of thousands of California workers basic labour rights for the first time. Apart from its immediate impact, the move by the California legislature might set off a domino effect in New York, Washington State and Oregon, where stalled moves to reclassify drivers might witness renewed momentum. The move has been criticised by ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft which built their businesses on inexpensive labour, and the companies have warned that recognizing drivers as employees could destroy their businesses.

Further Reading:

  1. Kate Conger and Noam Scheiber, California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees, New York Times (11 September 2019).
  2. Manish Singh, California passes landmark bill that requires Uber and Lyft to treat their driver as employees, Tech Crunch (11 Septemer 2019).
  3. Rosie Perper, California passes landmark bill to treat contract workers as employees, sending it to the governor for signature, Business Insider (11 September 2019).
  4. Alexia Fernandez Campbell, California just passed a landmark law to regulate Uber and Lyft, Vox (18 September 2019).
  5. Andrew J. Hawkins, California just dropped a bomb on the gig economy — what’s next?, The Verge (September 18, 2019).

Microsoft Announces Change in Policies

Microsoft has stated that most large tech law companies, will change the manner in which content is moderated on their social media platforms, irrespective of the US Congress implementing new laws. Their Chief Legal Officer and President, Brad Smith has indicated that most companies will take initiative, irrespective of U.S. Lawmakers. The statement has been made in light of the recent Christchurch shootings which were livestreamed on most social media platforms. Further, major tech companies are responding to the changes in laws around the world. S. 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, 1996 presently protects these companies from being sued on the basis of the content that is uploaded by its users. Microsoft itself has claimed that it has refused the government’s requests for facial recognition software due to the fear that it may be misused. The President of Microsoft has called for other tech companies as well to stop following the “if it’s legal, its acceptable approach” since companies need to start refusing selling their products to certain clients, irrespective of the legality of the action. However, ACLU, senior legislative council has accused Microsoft of continuing to sell software that can track faces and fear in real-time, leading to violation of privacy.

Further Reading:

  1. Sheila Dang, Microsoft’s Brad Smith: Tech companies won’t wait for U.S. to act on social media laws, Reuters (13 September 2019).
  2. Alex Hern, Microsoft boss: tech firm.s must stop ‘if it’s legal, it’s acceptable’ approach, The Guardian (20 September 2019).
  3. Tom Simonite, Microsoft’s Top Lawyer Becomes a Civil Rights Crusader, MIT Technology Review (8 September 2019).
  4. Microsoft’s Brad Smith: Tech Companies Won’t Wait For U.S. To Act On Social Media Laws, Communications Today (15 September 2019).

Read more

The TLF Newsletter: Issue 4

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our Editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

Facebook approaches SC in ‘Social Media-Aadhaar linking case’

In 2018, Anthony Clement Rubin and Janani Krishnamurthy filed PILs before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of Mandamus to “declare the linking of Aadhaar of any one of the Government authorized identity proof as mandatory for the purpose of authentication while obtaining any email or user account.” The main concern of the petitioners was traceability of social media users, which would be facilitated by linking their social media accounts with a government identity proof; this in turn could help combat cybercrime. The case was heard by a division bench of the Madras HC, and the scope was expanded to include curbing of cybercrime with the help of online intermediaries. In June 2019, the Internet Freedom Foundation became an intervener in the case to provide expertise in the areas of technology, policy, law and privacy. Notably, Madras HC dismissed the prayer asking for linkage of social media and Aadhaar, stating that it violated the SC judgement on Aadhaar which held that Aadhaar is to be used only for social welfare schemes. 

Facebook later filed a petition before the SC to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. Currently, the hearing before the SC has been deferred to 13 September 2019 and the proceedings at the Madras HC will continue. Multiple news sources reported that the TN government, represented by the Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal, argued for linking social media accounts and Aadhaar before the SC. However, Medianama has reported that the same is not being considered at the moment and the Madras HC has categorically denied it.

Further Reading:

  1. Aditi Agrawal, SC on Facebook transfer petition: Madras HC hearing to go on, next hearing on September 13, Medianama (21 August 2019).
  2. Nikhil Pahwa, Against Facebook-Aadhaar Linking, Medianama (23 August 2019).
  3. Aditi Agrawal, Madras HC: Internet Freedom Foundation to act as an intervener in Whatsapp traceability case, Medianama (28 June 2019).
  4. Aditi Agrawal, Kamakoti’s proposals will erode user privacy, says IIT Bombay expert in IFF submission, Medianama (27 August 2019).
  5. Prabhati Nayak Mishra, TN Government Bats for Aadhaar-Social Media Linking; SC Issues Notice in Facebook Transfer Petition, LiveLaw (20 August 2019).
  6. Asheeta Regidi, Aadhaar-social media account linking could result in creation of a surveillance state, deprive fundamental right to privacy, Firstpost (21 August 2019).

Bangladesh bans Mobile Phones in Rohingya camps

Adding to the chaos and despair for the Rohingyas, the Bangladeshi government banned the use of mobile phones and also restricted mobile phone companies from providing service in the region. The companies have been given a week to comply with these new rules. The reason cited for this ban was that refugees were misusing their cell phones for criminal activities. The situation in the region has worsened over the past two years and the extreme violation of Human Rights is termed to be reaching the point of Genocide according to UN officials. This ban on mobile phones, would further worsen the situation in Rohingya by increasing their detachment with the rest of the world, thus making their lives at the refugee camp even more arduous.

Further Reading:

  1. Nishta Vishwakarma, Bangladesh bans mobile phones services in Rohingya camps, Medianama (4 September 2019).
  2. Karen McVeigh, Bangladesh imposes mobile phone blackout in Rohingya refugee camp, The Guardian (5 September 2019).
  3. News agencies, Bangladesh bans mobile phone access in Rohingya camps, Aljazeera (3 September 2019).
  4. Ivy Kaplan, How Smartphones and Social Media have Revolutionised Refugee Migration, The Globe Post (19 October 2018).
  5. Abdul Aziz, What is behind the rising chaos in Rohingya camps, Dhakka Tribune (24 March 2019).

YouTube to pay 170 million penalty for collecting the data of children without their consent

Alphabet Inc.’s Google and YouTube will be paying a $170 million penalty to the Federal Trade Commission. It will be paid to settle allegations that YouTube collected the personal information of children by tracking their cookies and earning millions through targeted advertisements without parental consent. The FTC Chairman, Joe Simons, condemned the company for publicizing its popularity with children to potential advertisers, while blatantly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The company has claimed to advertisers, that it does not comply with any child privacy laws since it doesn’t have any users under the age of 13. Additionally, the settlement mandates that YouTube will have to create policies to identify content that is aimed at children and notify creators and channel owners of their obligations to collect consent from their parents. In addition, YouTube has already announced that it will be launching YouTube Kids soon which will not have targeted advertising and will have only child-friendly content. Several prominent Democrats in the FTC have criticized the settlement, despite it being the largest fine on a child privacy case so far, since the penalty is seen as a pittance in contrast to Google’s overall revenue.

Further Reading:

  1. Avie Schenider, Google, YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty Over Collecting Kids’ Personal Info, NPR (4 September 2019).
  2. Diane Bartz, Google’s YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty for Collecting Data on Kids, Reuters (4 September 2019).
  3. Natasha Singer and Kate Conger, Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube, New York Times (4 September 2019).
  4. Peter Kafka, The US Government Isn’t Ready to Regulate The Internet. Today’s Google Fine Shows Why, Vox (4 September 2019).

Facebook Data Leak of Over 419 Million Users

Recently, researcher Sanyam Jain located online unsecured servers that contained phone numbers for over 419 million Facebook users, including users from US, UK and Vietnam. In some cases, they were able to identify the user’s real name, gender and country. The database was completely unsecured and could be accessed by anybody. The leak increases the possibility of sim-swapping or spam call attacks for the users whose data has been leaked. The leak has happened despite Facebook’s statement in April that it would be more dedicated towards the privacy of its users and restrict access to data to prevent data scraping. Facebook has attempted to downplay the effects of the leak by claiming that the actual leak is only 210 million, since there are multiple duplicates in the data that was leaked, however Zack Whittaker, Security Editor at TechCrunch has highlighted that there is little evidence of such duplication. The data appears to be old since recently the company has changed its policy such that it users can no longer search for phone numbers. Facebook has claimed that there appears to be no actual evidence that there was a serious breach of user privacy.

Further Reading:

  1. Zack Whittaker, A huge database of Facebook users’ phone numbers found online, TechCrunch (5 September 2019).
  2. Davey Winder, Unsecured Facebook Server Leaks Data Of 419 Million Users, Forbes (5 September 2019).
  3. Napier Lopez, Facebook leak contained phone numbers for 419 million users, The Next Web (5 September 2019).
  4. Kris Holt, Facebook’s latest leak includes data on millions of users, The End Gadget (5 September 2019).

Mozilla Firefox 69 is here to protect your data

Addressing the growing data protection concerns Mozilla Firefox will now block third party tracking cookies and crypto miners by its Enhanced Tracking Protection feature. To avail this feature users will have to update to Firefox 69, which enforces stronger security and privacy options by default. Browser’s ‘Enhanced Tracking Protection’ will now remain turned on by default as part of the standard setting, however users will have the option to turn off the feature for particular websites. Mozilla claims that this update will not only restrict companies from forming a user profile by tracking browsing behaviour but will also enhance the performance, User Interface and battery life of the systems running on Windows 10/mac OS.

Further Readings

  1. Jessica Davies, What Firefox’s anti-tracking update signals about wider pivot to privacy trend, Digiday (5 September 2019).
  2. Jim Salter, Firefox is stepping up its blocking game, ArsTechnica (9 June 2019).
  3. Ankush Das, Great News! Firefox 69 Blocks Third Party Cookies, Autoplay Videos & Cryptominers by Default, It’s Foss (5 September 2019).
  4. Sean Hollister, Firefox’s latest version blocks third-party trackers by default for everyone, The Verge (3 September 2019).
  5. Shreya Ganguly, Firefox will now block third-party tracking cookies and cryptomining by default for all users, Medianama (4 September 2019).

Delhi Airport T3 terminal to use ‘Facial Recognition’ technology on a trial basis

Delhi airport would be starting a three-month trial of the facial recognition system in its T3 terminal. This system is called the Biometric Enabled Seamless Travel experience (BEST). With this technology, passenger’s entry would be automatically registered at various points such as check-in, security etc. Portuguese company- toolbox has provided the technical and software support for this technology. Even though this system is voluntary in the trial run the pertinent question of whether it will remain voluntary after it is officially incorporated is still to be answered. If the trial run is successful, it will be officially incorporated.

Further Reading:

  1. Soumyarendra Barik, Facial Recognition tech to debut at Delhi airport’s T3 terminal; on ‘trial basis’ for next three months, Medianama (6 September 2019).
  2. PTI, Delhi airport to start trial run of facial recognition system at T3 from Friday, livemint (5 September 2019).
  3. Times Travel Editor, Delhi International Airport installs facial recognition system for a 3 month trial, times travel (6 September 2019).
  4. Renée Lynn Midrack, What is Facial Recognition, lifewire (10 July 2019).
  5. Geoffrey A. Fowler, Don’t smile for surveillance: Why airport face scans are a privacy trap, The Washington Post (10 June 2019).

UK Court approves use of facial recognition systems by South Wales Police

In one of the first cases of its kind a British court ruled that police use of live facial recognition systems is legal and does not violate privacy and human rights. The case, brought by Cardiff resident Ed Bridges, alleged that his right to privacy had been violated by the system which he claimed had recorded him at least twice without permission, and the suit was filed to hold the use of the system as being violative of human rights including the right to privacy. The court arrived at its decision after finding that “sufficient legal controls” were in place to prevent improper use of the technology, including the deletion of data unless it concerned a person identified from the watch list.

Further Reading:

  1. Adam Satariano, Police Use of Facial Recognition Is Accepted by British Court, New York Times (4 September 2019).
  2. Owen Bowcott, Police use of facial recognition is legal, Cardiff high court rules, The Guardian (4 September 2019).
  3. Lizzie Dearden, Police used facial recognition technology lawfully, High Court rules in landmark challenge, The Independent (4 September 2019).
  4. Donna Lu, UK court backs police use of face recognition, but fight isn’t over, New Scientist (4 September 2019).

Read more

Is Embedding a YouTube Video Legal?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This piece has been authored by Jubin Jay, a final year student at National Law University, Odisha (NLUO). 

A lot of people use YouTube videos to enhance their online articles or webpages. Some provide a regular link to the YouTube video while some provide with an embedded link of the same.  While embedding, the video itself appears on the webpage and the user is not redirected to YouTube, in contrast to the previous case, where it only appeared as a link. Now, this is problematic because someone else’s video appears on one’s own webpage. A lot of people argue that this is similar to using someone else’s work for your gain without their permission, amounting to a copyright violation. However, there is ambiguity and a lot of questions are yet to be answered in such cases to prove an infringement. So, the broader question remains, is embedding a YouTube video legal?

Section 6 (c) of YouTube’s official terms of service reads:

“by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the content in connection with the service and YouTube’s (and it’s successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the service and under these Terms of Service.”

The most significant part in the aforementioned terms is that the owner of the video grants every YouTube user a license to access his content, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display, and perform such content as permitted through the functionality of YouTube and its terms of service. In other words, when any owner uploads his video, he has an option to either enable or disable embedding, and since by choosing to leave it enabled, he grants the user a limited license to embed the video.

Based on the Terms of Service as discussed above, one can ideally conclude that if there is an option in the video to embed, then there is nothing illegal in embedding such a video. However, the phenomena of embedding too comes with some conditions and restrictions attached to it. Section 4 (f) of the Terms of Service states, “If you use the Embeddable Player on your website, you may not modify, build upon, or block any portion or functionality of the Embeddable Player, including but not limited to links back to the YouTube website.”

Put simply, an embeddable player is made available on one’s webpage by inserting a code to a website, linking to a video that’s hosted at another location, and surfacing a video player without using any resources from the website itself. However, post this if there is any modification made to the embeddable player as had been generated, Section 4 (f) of the Terms of Service will be attracted. Such conditions and restrictions attached to embedding, can be better understood in light of the observations made by the courts of U.S. and EU in the cases discussed below.

In Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter the Seventh Circuit Appellate District faced a situation where members of an adult site were listing videos from the paid area of the site on a separate social media bookmarking site. The bookmarking site would then create a video preview with the embedded code. The Court however found that no copy was being made by the social media bookmarking site, thereby resulting in the termination of the infringement claim. Put more succinctly; merely embedding the video on your site does not give rise to liability.

Further, in Perfect 10 v. Amazon the Ninth Circuit made it clear that in situations where just in-line links are concerned, there is absolutely no direct copyright infringement liability.

The ECJ however brought a new dimension to the question of infringement. In BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes it was held that that as long as the embedding doesn’t make the video available to new audiences, there is no infringement. In this case, the water filter ad in question had already been available to the entire internet on YouTube, so the court observed that merely embedding it didn’t make it available to any new audiences that previously didn’t have access to it. In conclusion, it does not constitute a public communication within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of the Information Society Directive as it does not appeal to a new public.

However, all of the above cases fail to address a situation when there is embedding of a video which is already infringing. Could this amount to contributory infringement by aiding and abetting?

Judge Posner in the Flava Works Case observes, “myVidster (the defendant) is not an infringer, at least in the form of copying or distributing copies of copyrighted work. The infringers are the uploaders of copyrighted work. There is no evidence that myVidster is encouraging them, which would make it a contributory infringer. If myVidster encouraged or induced that party to upload the infringing video, it would be a contributory infringer to that infringement. But users of myVidster who thereafter merely stream that infringing video are not infringers of the reproduction or distribution rights since they have made no copies.”

The observation made above does seem satisfactory to an extent, however, is very situational in nature as there was no evidence that someone actually made a copy using the link provided. Had users copied the infringing video using the link, the observation made by Judge Posner could have been different. To conclude, proving infringement in cases where a YouTube video has been embedded will depend, for the most part, on the factual situation concerned and will vary from case to case. As technology keeps evolving with time, there can never be a strait jacket formula for proving infringement. In any event, with regard to the question we have raised presently, yes, embedding a YouTube video is legal, as long as the video being embedded is not an infringing video in itself.

Read more

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive: A license to gag freedom of expression globally?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

The following post has been authored by Bhavik Shukla, a fifth year student at National Law Institute University (NLIU) Bhopal. He is deeply interested in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law and Technology law. In this post, he examines the potential chilling effect of the EU Copyright Directive.

 

Freedom of speech and expression is the bellwether of the European Union (“EU”) Member States; so much so that its censorship will be the death of the most coveted human right. Europe possesses the strongest and the most institutionally developed structure of freedom of expression through the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). In 1976, the ECHR had observed in Handyside v. United Kingdom that a “democratic society” could not exist without pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. However, the recently adopted EU Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market (“Copyright Directive”) seeks to alter this fundamental postulate of the European society by introducing Article 13 to the fore. Through this post, I intend to deal with the contentious aspect of Article 13 of the Copyright Directive, limited merely to its chilling impact on the freedom of expression. Subsequently, I shall elaborate on how the Copyright Directive possesses the ability to affect censorship globally.

Collateral censorship: Panacea for internet-related issues in the EU

The adoption of Article 13 of the Copyright Directive hints towards the EU’s implementation of a collateral censorship-based model. Collateral censorship occurs when a state holds one private party, “A” liable for the speech of another private party, “B”. The problem with such model is that it vests the power to censor content primarily in a private party, namely “A” in this case. The implementation of this model is known to have an adverse effect on the freedom of speech, and the adoption of the Copyright Directive has contributed towards producing such an effect.

The Copyright Directive envisages a new concept of online content sharing service providers (“service providers”), which refers to a “provider… whose main purpose is to store and give access to the public to significant amount of protected subject-matter uploaded by its users…” Article 13(1) of the Copyright Directive states that such service providers shall perform an act of “communication to the public” as per the provisions of the Infosoc Directive. Further, Article 13(2a) provides that service providers shall ensure that “unauthorized protected works” shall not be made available. However, this Article also places service providers under an obligation to provide access to “non-infringing works” or “other protected subject matter”, including those covered by exceptions or limitations to copyright. The Copyright Directive’s scheme of collateral censorship is evident from the functions entrusted to the service providers, wherein they are expected to purge their networks and websites of unauthorized content transmitted or uploaded by third parties. A failure to do so would expose service providers to liability for infringement of the content owner’s right to communication to the public, as provided in the Infosoc Directive.

The implementation of a collateral censorship model will serve as a conduit to crackdown on the freedom of expression. The reason for the same emanates from the existence of certain content which necessarily falls within the grey area between legality and illegality. Stellar examples of this content are memes and parodies. It is primarily in respect of such content that the problems related to censorship may arise. To bolster this argument, consider Facebook, the social media website which boasts 1.49 billion daily active users. As per an official report in 2013, users were uploading 350 million photos a day, the number has risen exponentially today. When intermediaries like Facebook are faced with implementation of the Copyright Directive, it will necessarily require them to employ automated detecting mechanisms for flagging or detecting infringing material, due to the sheer volume of data being uploaded or transmitted. The accuracy of such software in detecting infringing content has been the major point of contention towards its implementation. Even though content like memes and parodies may be flagged as infringing by such software, automated blocking of content is prohibited under Article 13(3) of the Copyright Directive. This brings up the question of human review of such purportedly infringing content. In this regard, first, it is impossible for any human agency to review large tracts of data even after filtration by an automatic system. Second, in case such content is successfully reviewed somehow, a human agent may not be able to correctly decide the nature of such content with respect to its legality.

This scenario shall compel the service providers to resort to taking down the scapegoats of content, memes and parodies, which may even remotely expose them to liability. Such actions of the service providers will certainly censor freedom of expression. Another problem arising from this framework is that of adversely affecting net neutrality. Entrusting service providers with blocking access to content may lead to indiscriminate blocking of certain type of content.

Though the Copyright Directive provides certain safeguards in this regard, they are latent and ineffective. For example, consider access to a “complaints and redress mechanism” provided by Article 13(2b) of the Copyright Directive. This mechanism offers a latent recourse after the actual takedown or blocking of access to certain content. This is problematic because the users are either oblivious to/ unaware of such mechanisms being in place, do not have the requisite time and resources to prove the legality of content or are just fed up of such repeated takedowns. An easy way to understand these concerns is through YouTube’s current unjustified takedown of content, which puts the content owners under the same burdens as expressed above. Regardless of the reason for inaction by the content owners, censorship is the effect.

The EU Copyright Directive’s tryst with the world

John Perry Barlow had stated in his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace that “Cyberspace does not lie within your borders”. This statement is true to a large extent. Cyberspace and the internet does not lie in any country’s border, rather its existence is cross-border. Does this mean that the law in the EU affects the content we view in India? It certainly does!

The General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to countries beyond the EU. The global effect of the Copyright Directive is similar, as service providers do not distinguish European services from those of the rest of the world. It only makes sense for the websites in this situation to adopt a mechanism which applies unconditionally to each user regardless of his/ her location. This is the same line of reasoning which was adopted by service providers in order to review user and privacy policies in every country on the introduction of the GDPR. Thus, the adoption of these stringent norms by service providers in all countries alike due to the omnipresence of internet-based applications may lead to a global censorship motivated by European norms.

The UN Special Rapporteur had envisaged that Article 13 would have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression globally. Subsequent to the Directive’s adoption, the Polish government protested against its applicability before the CJEU on the ground that it would lead to unwarranted censorship. Such action is likely to be followed by dissenters of the Copyright Directive, namely Italy, Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In light of this fierce united front, hope hinges on these countries to prevent the implementation of censoring laws across the world.

Read more