| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > UK travel site Expresses concern over infringement (NoticeID 2020, http://chillingeffects.org/N/2020) | Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2020 |
June 06, 2005
|
Sender Information: |
Recipient Information:
User Support, DMCA Complaints
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: fax
Re:
To whom it may concern, In accordance with the stated copyright policies of Google as posted at http://www.google.com/dmca.html, I am contacting you to make a formal complaint against two websites listed in your Search index. I have been made aware that two websites included in the Google Search index, apparently administered by the same individual, have copied several hundred
|
Question: Why does a search engine get DMCA takedown notices for materials in its search listings? Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(d), a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous. Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Question: Does a copyright owner have to specify the exact materials it alleges are infringing?
Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material. |
|
|