Grounds for Holding Online Intermediary Liable in Connection with Intellectual Property Rights Infringement

The present study analyses the grounds on which an online intermediary can be held liable in connection with intellectual property rights infringement. Its purpose was to establish the forms of unlawful behavior in which the intermediary’s violation can be expressed and their influence on intermediary’s liability. This problem is of particular importance due to the fact that the Russian legal order has not yet formulated a sustainable approach to its resolution. The negative consequences of this gap are unjustified expansion of intermediaries’ liability and uncertainty of its regulation. In authors’ opinion, the expression «on general grounds» used by the legislator in Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates the heterogeneity of the grounds of intermediary’s liability. Bearing this in mind, the article builds a system that would take into account the diversity of forms of intermediary’s participation in transmission of infringing content. The paper considers the most common options of the grounds of liability of online intermediaries. Using the experience of foreign legal orders, the possibility of their implementation in the Russian legal system is assessed. The authors come to the conclusion that the system of grounds of online intermediary liability should include unlawful use, failure to take measures to prevent or suppress infringement, participation in joint infringement of exclusive rights, as well as material contribution or inducement, which cannot be considered as joint tortfeasor ship. At the same time, the authors consider the application of such grounds as infringement of the right of authorisation and vicarious liability of intermediary for user’s actions to be inappropriate in the paradigm of Russian law. Each of the proposed grounds has its own scope of application, and the regime of liability arising from them is differentiated. In the framework of the proposed model, the scope of liability, its nature and available legal remedies are made dependent on the specific ground.

1. Aleksejchuk, A. A. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnyh posrednikov za narusheniya v seti [Features of liability of online intermediaries for violations in the network]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Intellectual rights in the digital age: Selected aspects (pp. 212–229). GAUGN Press.

2. Amadei, X. (2002). Standards of liability for internet service providers: A comparative study of France and the United States with a specific focus on copyright, defamation, and illicit content. Cornell International Law Journal, 35(1), 190–229.

3. Angelopoulos, C. (2017). European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis. Alphen van den Rijn: Kluwer Law International BV.

4. Angelopoulos, C. (2020). Harmonizing intermediary copyright liability in the EU: A summary. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 314-334). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.16

5. Aristi, R. S. (2007). El intercambio de obras protegidas a través de las plataformas peer-to-peer [The exchange of protected works through peer-to-peer platforms]. Instituto de Derecho de Autor.

6. Arnold, R. (2020). Intermediary liability and trade mark infringement: A common law perspective. In G. Frosio, The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 404–420). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.21

7. Barazza, S. (2012). Secondary liability for IP infringement: Сonverging patterns and approaches in comparative case law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7(12), 879–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPS164

8. Bartholomew, M., & McArdle, P. F. (2011). Causing infringement. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64(3), 675–746.

9. Bayer, A. (2009). Liability 2.0 — does the internet environment require new standards for secondary liability? An overview of the current legal situation in Germany. In W. P. Waldeck und Pyrmont, M. Adelmann, R. Brauneis, J. Drexl & R. Nack, Patents and technological progress in a globalized world (pp. 365–377). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88743-0_26

10. De Beer, J., & Clemmer, C. (2008). Global trends in online copyright enforcement: A non-neutral role for network intermediaries. Jurimetrics, 49(4), 375–409.

11. Blevins, J. (2013). Uncertainty as enforcement mechanism: The new expansion of secondary copyright liability to internet platforms. Cardozo Law Review, 34(1), 1823–1887.

12. Bogdanova, O. (2017). Zashchita intellektual’nyh avtorskikh prav grazhdansko-pravovymi sposobami [Copyright protection by civil law remedies]. Yusticinform.

13. Burk, D. L., & Cohen, J. E. (2001). Fair use infrastructure for rights management systems. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 41–83.

14. Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Evolución de la jurisprudencia sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios de la sociedad de la información como facilitadores de infracciones directas [Developments in case law on the liability of information society intermediaries as facilitators of direct infringement]. Informática y Derecho: Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático (segunda época) [Informatics and Law: Iberoamerican Review of IT Law (second period)], (4), 71–92.

15. Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Las infracciones indirectas como mecanismo para la adecuada remuneración de los autores [Indirect copyright infringement as a mechanism for the adequate remuneration of the authors] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Salamanca]. Credos [University of Salamanca Campus Repository]. http://hdl.handle.net/10366/139099

16. Cascón, F. C. (2015). Delimitación de la responsabilidad de los servicios de intermediación de la sociedad de la información (II) (Segunda parte) (Especial atención a la infracción de derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectual a través de servicios Hosting-Web 2-0) [Delimitation of the liability of intermediation services of the information society (II) (Part Two) (Special attention to the infringement of industrial and intellectual property rights through Hosting-Web 2-0 services)]. Iustitia, (13), 217–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.15332/IUST.V0I13.1542

17. Castello P. J. J. (2016). La responsabilidad indirecta de los prestadores de servicios de la sociedad de la información e intermediarios a la luz del artículo 138. II de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual [Indirect liability of ISPs and intermediaries in light of article 138.II of the Spanish Intellectual Property Law]. Revista Aranzadi de derecho patrimonial [Aranzadi Review of Patrimonial Law], (41), 175–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3142326

18. Davies, P. S. (2015). Accessory liability. Bloomsbury Publishing.

19. Arnold, R., & Davies, P. (2017). Accessory liability for intellectual property infringement: The case of authorisation. Law Quarterly Review, 133(1), 442–468.

20. Dinwoodie, G. B. (2017). A comparative analysis of the secondary liability of online service providers. In G. B. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 1–72). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_1

21. Elkin-Koren, N. (2014). After twenty years: Copyright liability of online intermediaries. In S. Frankel, & D. Gervais (Eds.), The evolution and equilibrium of copyright in the digital age (pp. 29–51). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477179.005

22. Elkin-Koren, N. (2006). Making technology visible: Liability of internet service providers for peer-to-peer traffic. New York University Journal Legislation and Public Policy, 9(1), 2–60.

23. Feder, J. M. (2004). Is Betamax obsolete: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. in the Age of Napster. Creighton Law Review, 37, 859–913.

24. Frosio, G. F. (2018). Why keep a dog and bark yourself? From intermediary liability to responsibility. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax021

25. Fuentes, J. M. (2003). La responsabilidad de los prestadores de servicios en línea por las infracciones al derecho de autor y los derechos conexos en el ámbito digital. El Tratado OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor (WCT) y el Tratado OMPI sobre Interpretación o Ejecución y Fonogramas (WPPT) [The liability of online service providers for infringements of copyright and related rights in the digital environment. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)]. Revista de Propiedad Intelectual [Intellectual Property Review], (13), 11–48.

26. Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort: A comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779008

27. Ginsburg, J. C., & Ricketson, S. (2006). Inducers and authorisers: A comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s Kazaa ruling. Media & Arts Law Review, 11(1), 2–25.

28. Goold, P. R. (2013). Corrective justice and copyright infringement. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 16(2), 251–294.

29. Gorodov, O. A. (2017). Otvetstvennost’ informacionnykh posrednikov [Liability of information intermediaries]. Patenty i licenzii. Intellektual’nye prava [Patents and licenses. Intellectual property rights], (7), 2–8.

30. Hamdani, A. (2002). Who’s liable for cyberwrongs. Cornell Law Review, 87(4), 901–957.

31. Helman, L., & Parchomovsky, G. (2011). The best available technology standard. Columbia Law Review, 111, 1194–1243.

32. Husovec, M. (2017). Injunctions against intermediaries in the European Union: Accountable but not liable? Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108227421

33. Husovec, M. (2019). Remedies first, liability second: Or why we fail to agree on optimal design of intermediary liability? In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary Liability (pp. 90–103). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.4

34. Ivanov, N. V. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnogo posrednika za narushenie isklyuchitel’nogo prava [Peculiarities of liability of the information intermediary for violation of an exclusive right]. Zakon [The Law], (5), 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-5-37-52

35. Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). O nekotorykh tendenciyakh razvitiya zakonodatelstva ob otvetstvennosti internet-provaydera [On some trends in the development of legislation on the liability of Internet service providers]. Zakon [The Law], (7), 27–34.

36. Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). Problemy opredeleniya predelov otvetstvennosti internet-provajdera [Problems of determining the limits of liability of an Internet provider]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda [Bulletin of the Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation], (3), 125–132.

37. Katyal, N. K. (2001). Criminal law in cyberspace. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(4), 1003–1114.

38. Konarski, X., & Targosz, T. (2017). Secondary liability of internet service providers in Poland. In G. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 73–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_2

39. Korolev, M. (2014). Ispolzovanie proizvedeniy pri okazanii uslugi kabelnogo televideniya [The use of the works in the provision of cable television services]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (3), 50–54.

40. Kraakman, R. H. (1986). Gatekeepers: The anatomy of a third-party enforcement strategy. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2(1), 53–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036906

41. Krokida, Z. (2022). Internet service provider liability for copyright and trade mark infringement: Towards an EU co-regulatory framework. Bloomsbury Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.48683/1926.00094852

42. Laidlaw, E. B. (2015). Regulating speech in cyberspace: Gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107278721

43. Leistner, M. (2012). Common principles of secondary liability? In A. Ohly (Ed.), Common principles of European intellectual property (pp. 117–146). Mohr Siebeck.

44. Leistner, M. (2014). Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 9(1), 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt213

45. Letai, P. (2012). La infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre la obra musical en Internet [Infringement of intellectual property rights on musical works on the Internet]. Comares.

46. Lichtman, D., & Posner, E. A. (2006). Holding internet service providers accountable. Supreme Court Economic Review, 14, 221-259. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.14.3655313

47. Lorents, D. V. (2020). Informatsionnye posredniki (provajdery) v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh: Priroda, sushchnost’ i tipologiya [Information intermediaries (providers) in Russia and foreign countries: Nature, essence and typology]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federatsii [Bulletin of Economic Justice in Russian Federation], (5), 136–163.

48. Lukhmanov, M. I. (2022). Model’ deliktnoj otvetstvennosti v situatsiyakh kumulyativnoj prichinnoj neopredelennosti [A model of tort liability in situations of cumulative causal uncertainty]. In D. A. Monakhov, & N. V. Tololaeva (Eds.), Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossijskoj shkoly chastnogo prava. Vypusk 16 [Current problems of civil law: Collection of works by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law. Issue 16] (pp. 470–511). Statut.

49. Meier, S. (2018). Plurality of parties. In N. Jansen, & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), Commentaries on European contract laws (pp. 1557–1625). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790693.003.0011

50. Markelova, A. A. (2021). Civil liability of taxi aggregators: Between contract and tort law. Digital Law Journal, 2(4), 8–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-4-8-19

51. Markesinis, B. (1994). The German law of torts (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press.

52. Marsoof, A. (2019). Internet intermediaries and trade mark rights. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351208512

53. Mikhailov, V. S. (2021). Prichinno-sledstvennaya svyaz’ kak usloviye deliktnoy otvetstvennosti [Causation as a condition of tort liability] [Doctoral dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University]. Istina — Lomonosov Moscow State University Repository. https://istina.msu.ru/download/353652622/1sred0:RpW4jwtIeYahSBAVKZoFMhcOe7o/

54. Morgunova, E. A., & Shakhnazarov, B. A. (2023). Pravo intellektual’noj sobstvennosti v usloviyakh razvitiya novykh tekhnologij [Intellectual property law in the conditions of development of new technologies]. Norma, INFRA-M.

55. Mostert, F. (2020). Intermediary liability and online trade mark infringement: Emerging international common approaches. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 369–380). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.19

56. Mukhgalin, A. (2018). Nekotorye problem primeneniya stat’i 1253.1 Grazdanskogo Kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Certain issues related to application of article1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (12), 7–14.

57. Netanel, N. W. (2003). Impose a noncommercial use levy to allow free peer-to-peer file sharing. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17(1), 1–83.

58. Nordemann, J. B. (2018). Recent CJEU case law on communication to the public and its application in Germany: A new EU concept of liability. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(9), 744–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy093

59. Nurullaev, R. T. (2018). Informatsionny posrednik kak sub”ekt informatsionnogo prava [Information intermediary as a subject of information law] [Doctoral dissertation, Higher School of Economics]. HSE Repository. https://www.hse.ru/sci/diss/224091382

60. Oddi, A. S. (1989). Contributory copyright infringement: The tort and technological tensions. Notre Dame Law Review, 64(1), 47–104.

61. Ohly, A. (2018). The broad concept of “communication to the public” in recent CJEU judgments and the liability of intermediaries: primary, secondary or unitary liability? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(8), 664–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy083

62. O’Sullivan, K. T. (2019). Copyright and internet service provider “liability”: The emerging realpolitik of intermediary obligations. IIC — International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50(5), 527–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00816-x

63. Oswald, L. J. (2008). International issues in secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringement. American Business Law Journal, 45(2), 247–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2008.00055.x

64. Pappalardo, K. (2014). Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective. In B. Fitzgerald, & J. Gilchrist (Eds.), Copyright perspectives: Past, present and prospect (pp. 241–259). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11

65. Peguera, M. (2010) Enlaces, descargas y puesta a disposición en redes P2P (Comentario a la Sentencia del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 7 de Barcelona, de 9 de marzo de 2010, sobre el sitio web elrincondejesus.com) [Links, downloads and making available on P2P networks (Commentary on the Judgment of the Commercial Court № 7 of Barcelona, of 9 March 2010, on the website elrincondejesus.com)]. Diario La Ley [Diary of Law], (7462), 1–15.

66. Peguera, M. (2018). Hyperlinking under the lens of the revamped right of communication to the public. Computer law and security review, 34(5), 1099–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.029

67. Riordan, J. (2016). The liability of internet intermediaries. Oxford University Press.

68. Riordan, J. (2020). A theoretical taxonomy of intermediary liability. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 57–89). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.3

69. Ríos, J. A. X. (2011). El intercambio de ficheros de obras protegidas por la LPI desde el punto de vista del derecho civil [The exchange of files of works protected by the LPI from a civil law perspective]. In X. O’Callghan, Muñoz (Ed.), Los derechos de propiedad intelectual en la obra audiovisual [Intellectual property rights in audiovisual works] (pp. 259–278). Dykinson.

70. Rosati, E. (2020). The direct liability of intermediaries. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 335–348). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.17

71. Rosati, E. (2017). The CJEU Pirate Bay judgment and its impact on the liability of online platforms. European Intellectual Property Review, 39(12), 737–748.

72. Savel’ev, A. (2015). Kriterii nalichiya dejstvitel’nogo i predpolagaemogo znaniya kak usloviya privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Criteria of actual and constructive knowledge as a condition for bringing an online intermediary to responsibility]. Zakon, (11), 48–60.

73. Savola, P. (2017). EU copyright liability for internet linking. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 139–150.

74. Semenova, A. E. (1928). Obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie vsledstvie neosnovatel’nogo obogashcheniya, i obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie iz prichineniya vreda [Obligations arising from unjust enrichment and obligations arising from the infliction of harm]. Yurid. izd-vo NKYU RSFSR.

75. Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. PublicAffairs.

76. Smith, J. C., & Burns, P. (1983). Donoghue v. Stevenson: The not so golden anniversary. The Modern Law Review, 46(2), 147–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02511.x

77. Smith, E. (2011). Lord of the files: International secondary liability for internet service providers. Washington and Lee Law Review, 68(3), 1555–1588.

78. Spier, J., & Haazen, O. A. (2000). Comparative conclusions on causation. In J. Spier (Ed.), Unification of tort law: Causation (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Law International.

79. Spinello, R. A. (2008). Intellectual property: Legal and moral challenges of online file sharing. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 553–569). Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137349088_20

80. Sukhanov, E. A. (Ed.). (2019). Grazhdanskoe pravo: T. I. Obshchaya chast’ [Civil Law: Vol. I. The General Part]. Statut.

81. Suzor, N., & Fitzgerald, B. (2011). The legitimacy of graduated response schemes in copyright law. The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 34(1), 1–40.

82. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2016). The debate on the moral responsibilities of online service providers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1575–1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1

83. Tololaeva, N. V. (2023). Kommentarij k stat’e 1080 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii [Commentary on article 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 112–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-112-144

84. Tololaeva, N. V. (2020). Passivnye solidarnye obyazatel’stva: rossijskij podkhod i kontinental’no-evropejskaya traditsiya [Passive solidary obligations: Russian approach and continental European tradition]. Statut.

85. Tortajada, P. E. (2016). La responsabilidad civil por infracción de los derechos de autor en internet: Estado de la cuestión [Civil liability for copyright infringement on the internet: State of the matter]. In A. Fayos Gardó, La propiedad intelectual en la era digital [Intellectual property in the digital era] (pp. 169–190). Dykinson.

86. Tret’yakov, S. V. (2023). Uchenie S.N. Bratusya o sub”ektivnom prave — povorotny punkt v razvitii otechestvennoj tsivilistiki [S.N. Bratus’s concept of subjective right as a turning point in the development of Russian civil law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 145–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-145-189

87. Ullrich, C. (2017). Standards for duty of care: Debating intermediary liability from a sectoral perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3037744

88. Fomina, O. N. (2022). Pravovaya priroda otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal nature of online intermediary liability]. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil law], (2), 33–36.

89. Fomina, O. N. (2019). Pravovoj status informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal status of online intermediary]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 19(3), 171–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2019-19-3-171-191

90. Van Eecke, P. (2011). Online service providers and liability: A plea for a balanced approach. Common Market Law Review, 48(5), 1455–1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011058

91. Van Gerven, W., Lever, J., & Larouche, P. (2000). Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international tort law. Hart Publishing.

92. Wang, J. (2016). Regulating hosting ISPs’ responsibilities for copyright infringement: The freedom to operate in the US, EU and China. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8351-8

93. Weiskopf, D. (1998). The risks of copyright infringement on the internet: A practitioner’s guide. University of San Francisco Law Review, 33(1), Article 1.

94. Yen, A. C. (2008). Torts and the construction of inducement and contributory liability in Amazon and Visa. Columbia Journal of Law and Arts, 34(4), 513–530.