Explore

Show in map
Court Decision

Tribunale di Torino [Tribunal of Turin], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Delta TV Programs S.rl. v. YouTube et al

Reversing en banc a previous judgment of the same Tribunal of May 5, 2014 (see below). This time, the Court accepted Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement of certain South American soap operas that users had uploaded to YouTube. In this case, Google complied with its notice and take down policy, and the videos were removed as soon as the specific URLs were provided by Delta TV. Nevertheless, the Court agreed with Delta TV’s claims, and ordered Google and YouTube to remove the infringing videos and to prevent further uploads of the same content through the use of its Content ID software (YouTube’s system for automatic detection of uploaded videos that infringe copyright) using as a reference the URLs provided by Delta TV. The Court stressed that these proactive...
Court Decision

Tribunale di Torino [Tribunal of Turin], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Delta TV Programs S.rl. v. YouTube et al

Rejecting Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against YouTube for copyright infringement on certain South American soap operas which had been uploaded by YouTube users. Delta TV sued Google and YouTube and filed for an interim injunction asking the Court to order Google to remove the infringing videos, prohibiting further violations and imposing a penalty of EUR 1,000 per day for each violation of the Court’s order. However, the Court rejected the request on the basis that (i) there is no obligation on the part of Google and YouTube, as hosting providers, to assess the actual ownership of the copyrights in videos uploaded by individual users, (ii) the only liability hypothetically attributable to Google and YouTube relates to cases where they are specifically informed of the unlawfulness of the uploaded videos...
Court Decision

Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court], Third Criminal Section, Google-Vividown, 5107/14

Upholding the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment and concluding a long dispute between the no-profit association Vividown and Google. (1) Vividown brought a lawsuit against Google because it did not promptly remove a video from YouTube. The video portrayed a minor with the Down syndrome bullied by his classmates. (2) For the Privacy Code article 167 “Any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause harm to another, processes personal data (unlawfully) … shall be punished, if harm is caused, by imprisonment for between six and eighteen months or, if the offence consists in data communication or dissemination, by imprisonment for between six and twenty-four months, unless the offence is more serious”. (3) The first trial found Google guilty for “not preventing the crime”; the Court’s...
Legislation

AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement, 680/13/CONS

Vesting the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would not target direct infringers but rather Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For a summary in English, see CIS blog post 1; see also CIS blog post 2, 3
Institution (Description)

Regulatory Entity: Communication Authority (AGCOM)

The AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement vested the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would not target direct infringers but rather Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For a summary in English, see CIS blog post 1; see also CIS blog posts 2 and 3.
Court Decision

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Criminal, Lega Calcio

Ordering Internet Service Providers to block access within Italy to all present and future IP numbers associated with the Rojadirecta domain names, a website linking to football games streamed online without authorization. The criminal prosecution was started upon a claim of the Italian Soccer Association, since the unlawful streaming infringed its exclusive rights to broadcast the games. As in a similar decision of January 12, 2013, the order was based on Article 171, paragraph 1, letter a-bis of the Italian Copyright Law (see below).