IPTango: Google

Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts

Saturday, 21 October 2017

Colombian Constitutional Court mandates Google to eliminate a blog from its platform Blogger

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr October 21, 2017 No comments:

On 2016, John William Fierro Caicedo, the owner of the company ‘Muebles Caquetá’ (Caquetá Furniture), instituted an action of ‘tutela’ against Google Inc. and the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications of Colombia (MinTIC) for the alleged violation of his rights to intimacy, good name, and dignity (Articles 15 and 21, Political Constitution of Colombia).

This request was made because a person using the Blogger platform (owned by Google Inc.) anonymously created a blog named ‘No compren en Muebles Caquetá! Estafadores!’ (Do not buy at Caquetá Furniture! Scammers!). This blog contains some slanderous affirmations, such as: ‘Furniture Caquetá, directed by the fraudster William Fierro, is dedicated to defrauding people by various means. They ask for an advance or the full payment first, and after it is received, they will disappear with your money.’ (Muebles Caquetá la cual dirige el estafador William Fierro, se dedican a estafar a la gente por diversos medios. Piden primero un adelanto o el dinero completo y después de que se lo entregas desaparecen con tu dinero).

John William Fierro Caicedo not only denies such accusations, but also affirms that the content of this blog has brought problems to his family and his business.

In response to the action of ‘tutela’, the MinTIC argued that according to Law 1341 of 2009 and Decree 2618 of 2012 it is not the national authority responsible for the surveillance and control of the companies publishing contents on the web, and requested its dissociation from the legal process.

For its part, Google Inc. affirmed that ‘although the company owns the tool www.blogger.com, it is not responsible for the information and content written and shared by users on the aforementioned digital platform, and that Google, for its part, only acts as a tool processor and as such, imposes policies on users, but does not manage, control, or produce contents’ (si bien la compañía es propietaria de la herramienta www.blogger.com, no es responsable por la información ni los contenidos redactados y compartidos por los usuarios en la mencionada plataforma digital, y que por su parte, Google solo actúa como procesador de la herramienta y como tal, impone políticas a los usuarios, más no maneja, controla, ni produce contenidos).

On August 2016, the Civil Municipal Court 21 of Bogotá handed down a ruling denying the constitutional protection requested by John William Fierro Caicedo, and disconnected the MinTIC from the process. In addition, it affirmed that neither Google Inc. nor Google Colombia Ltda. are responsible for the infringement of the human rights of the petitioner because it is not their obligation the ‘rectification, correction, elimination or complement of the information upload by users’ because they only act as tool processors.

Finally, this case was analysed by the Constitutional Court that, in Ruling T-063A/17 of this year, decided to revoke the decision of the Civil Municipal Court. As the allegations made on the blog against Muebles Caquetá and its owner were not proven, the Court considered them in violation of the rights to good name and dignity of the petitioner. Consequently, it was ordered that: (i) Google Inc. and Google Colombia Ltda. have to eliminate the blog http://muebles-caqueta.blogspot.com.co; and, (ii) the MinTIC have to establish a national law for the protection of the rights of users on the web, particularly those concerning abusive, defamatory, dishonourable, slanderous and injurious posts that undermine the right of dignity.

It is worth highlighting that although the Court acknowledged that under the US legislation Google Inc. might have not responsibility for the contents published using their processors, it mandates that both Google Inc. and Google Colombia Ltda. in carrying on their activities in Colombia have to respect the rights of users and consumers in the country.

Post written by Florelia Vallejo Trujillo

Blogs to pay royalties for posting YouTube videos – Oh Dear!

Patricia Covarrubia March 19, 2012 No comments:

The Brazilian collecting society which is charge of collecting royalties in behalf of the creators has sent a bill to a blog. The blog in question is a non-profit blog that covers design, art, technology and culture. While the blog contains some ads they are no more that to exchange support to others in the blogosphere.

The Central Bureau of Collection and Distribution (ECAD) sent an e-mail to the blog Caligraffitti warning it that it would have to pay royalties for videos taken from YouTube and Vimeo that have being inserted in the blog. As soon as the e-mail was received, Mr Oliveira, one of the managers of the blog, called ECAD to enquiry about this. Ring…ring…ECAD here…yep… no mistake…"You Tube pays because they are transmitter, but blog are communicators and so, they have to pay too”. Since the end of February, ECAD started to charge some ebcasting for this matter.

A charge to be paid
ECAD is charging a monthly fee to the blog for being classified as a webcasting/broadcasting programs originating from the internet itself. It was also classified as podcasting, simulcasting and the setting of sites.

Mr Olivero disagrees with this monthly payment noting that it charges like a package and not by videotape for example, meaning that it is regardless of the amount used each month [I guess he refers as something like ‘pay per view’ or ‘pay as you go’]. For this reason and taken advice from a counsel the blog was taken down. However after some more digging and advice “all (bloggers and lawyers) agree that this kind of attitude would inhibit the Brazilian blogosphere” and thus, decided to relocate and put the site up.

Going back to ECAD, it firstly noted that Art 5 of section II of Law 9610/98 which covers the right of public performance in digital mode [… the transmission or dissemination of sounds or sounds and images through of radio waves, satellite signals, wire, cable or other conductor, optical or other electromagnetic process…] does indeed includes the internet. Secondly, it denied that there is a double recovery (from YouTube and from the blogs) because these two are different forms of use and are independent of each other.
More importantly, ECAD praise itself for focusing on the “awareness and enlightenment on the need of copyright payment, not only because it is a legal requirement but because it shows respect to authors and their works”.

ECAD before moving?

Pressure or a change of heart?
The case came to light in the O GLobo newspaper as well as the online edition of the magazine Forbes and other news reporters. To this effect, Marcel Leonardi, director of Public Policy and Government Relations of Google Brazil, sent a missive saying that while ECAD and Google have signed an agreement, Google does not endorse ECAD to charge third parties for using and/or posting YouTube videos. Mr Leonardi finally stated that he hopes that "the Ecad stop this behaviour and withdraw its complaints against the users." And so....ECAD has now reassessed the matter and explained that the notifications were sent before they were moving and it was an operational misunderstanding. [I still do not get this - a bug in the computer system? they were moving so they left unnatended the system? sorry, this is not clear to me and if there is some one that 'is not moving' can you please clarify this issue?].

Source BOL noticias.

New book is out! Google and the Law

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr March 08, 2012 1 comment:

Recently was out a new book entitled "Google & the Law" and subtitled "Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models", is published by Springer and is a product of the T. M. C. Asser Press. This book is a global collaboration text (as collective work), edited by our team member Aurelio López-Tarruella Martínez, and contain thirteen papers written by authors from several countries and legal cultures. One of them is our well-known blog founder Jeremy Phillips, who wrote a very interesting article called "Google AdWords: Trade Mark Law and Liability of Internet Service Providers".

The complete text may be read online and soon will be available in paper format. An excerpt is following:

"[G]oogle’s has proved to be one of the most successful business models in today’s knowledge economy. Its services and applications have become part of our day-to-day life. However, Google has repeatedly been accused of acting outside the law in the development of services such as Adwords, Googlebooks or YouTube. One of the main purposes of this book is to assess whether those accusations are well-founded. But more important than that, this book provides a deeper reflection: are current legal systems adapted to business models such as that of Google or are they conceived for an industrial economy? Do the various lawsuits involving Google show an evolution of the existing legal framework that might favour the flourishing of other knowledge-economy businesses? Or do they simply reflect that Google has gone too far? What lessons can other knowledge-based businesses learn from all the disputes in which Google has been or is involved?

This book is valuable reading for legal practitioners and academics in the field of information technologies and intellectual property law, economists interested in knowledge-economy business models and sociologists interested in internet and social networks".

The table of contents is available in internet with some sample pages.

GOOGLE pierde en la OMPI disputa por dominio Youtube.com.pe de Perú

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr February 26, 2012 No comments:

Una reciente Decisión del Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI resolvió que el dominio Youtube.com.pe registrado en Perú (registrador: Red Científica Peruana NIC.PE) no sea cancelado ni pase a nombre del demandante Google Inc, quedando en poder de su actual titular, la empresa "googel" (sic) ltd. domiciliada en China. De esta forma Google, dueña del famoso Youtube.com sufre un revés en su reclamación en sede OMPI.

La reclamación de Google Inc. (que no fue respondida por la demandada) se basó en sus registros marcarios de EE.UU., Perú, Argentina, Colombia, España y en la Unión Europea; en el hecho de ser titular del mundialmente famoso portal de internet youtube.com, con dominio registrado desde el 2005; en el registro y uso de mala fe del titular chino; y en la Política, el Reglamento, las normas generales y principios de derecho que sean aplicables, dentro de los que se encuentran los Tratados suscritos por el Perú, como la Convención General Interamericana de Protección Marcaria y Comercial de 1929 (Convención de Washington), de la cual el Perú y los Estados Unidos de América son países miembros.

La Experta resolvió rechazar la reclamación de Google teniendo en consideración la "Política uniforme de solución de controversias en materia de nombres de dominio" aprobada el 26 de agosto de 1999 (Política), su Reglamento (1999) y su Reglamento Adicional (2009) y las normas generales y principios generales del derecho aplicables al caso. De acuerdo a lo dispuesto en la Política (párrafo 4.a.), las circunstancias que deben analizarse a fin de determinar si se debe ordenar la transferencia de un nombre de dominio a la reclamante (Google) son las siguientes:

“[1.] El nombre de dominio sea idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a:

a. Marcas registradas en el Perú, de manera previa al registro de dominio y sobre la que el reclamante tenga derechos; o b. Denominaciones o indicaciones de origen protegidas en el Perú; o c. Nombres de personas naturales o seudónimos reconocidos públicamente en el Perú; o d. Nombres de entidades oficiales del Gobierno Central, Regional o Local del Perú; e. Nombres registrados en Registros Públicos del Perú de instituciones privadas; y

2. El solicitante de un nombre de dominio no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio; y

3. El nombre de dominio ha sido registrado o se utiliza de mala fe”.

El examen de estos tres elementos tendrá como efecto establecer la cancelación del registro o la transmisión de la titularidad del nombre de dominio en disputa, debiendo resolverse para ello una cuestión previa: La Constitución Política del Perú establece que los tratados celebrados por el Perú y en vigor forman parte del derecho nacional y la Convención de Washington es uno de ellos. El art. 1 de dicho Tratado establece el principio de “trato nacional”, por el cual cada Estado tiene que aplicar a los nacionales o domiciliados de otros Estados su legislación nacional sin discriminación alguna, otorgándoles un trato no menos favorable que el que da a sus propios nacionales o domiciliados. Conforme lo establece expresamente el artículo 3 de la Convención de Washington “[t]oda marca debidamente registrada o legalmente protegida en uno de los Estados Contratantes, será admitida a registro o depósito y protegida legalmente en los demás Estados Contratantes, previo al cumplimiento de los requisitos formales establecidos por la ley nacional de dichos Estados”. La ley nacional -en este caso- es la Decisión 486 de la Comisión del Acuerdo de Cartagena, norma derivada de un tratado de integración, que forma parte de la legislación peruana y que, en su artículo 154 establece que “[el] derecho al uso exclusivo de una marca se adquirirá por el registro de la misma ante la respectiva oficina nacional competente”.

De una interpretación del artículo 3ª citado, en concordancia con lo dispuesto por el principio de “trato nacional” consagrado en el artículo 1° de la Convención de Washington, fluye que siendo un principio del Derecho marcario andino que sólo el registro es constitutivo de derechos (a diferencia del sistema que rige en Estados Unidos de América) no puede reconocerse una protección mayor a un nacional de otro Estado que no cumple los requisitos formales establecidos en las normas legales del Perú, pues ello significaría un acto de discriminación en contra de los nacionales y domiciliados en Perú, hecho que no va acorde con el espíritu de trato igualitario a nacionales y domiciliados en Perú y en los demás Estados contratantes. Así, rechazó la aplicación de la Convención General Interamericana de Protección Marcaria y Comercial de 1929 según el sentido reclamado por Google.

En cuanto al fondo, la decisión se decanta por resolver el asunto sobre la base del principio prior in tempore potior in jure (reglado en la Política), considerando que el dominio Youtube.com.pe fue registrado el 29 de mayo del año 2006 y que el 7 de mayo del año 2007 es la fecha de registro más antigua de la marca Youtube en el Perú, que tiene un sistema marcario donde el registro es de carácter constitutivo, de manera que la fecha invocada del 14 de diciembre de 2006 como la primera solicitud ante el INDECOPI no puede tomarse en cuenta como marca previa siendo, en definitiva, ambas fechas posteriores al registro del nombre de dominio en disputa, que así visto tiene mejor derecho.

Con respecto a la fecha de primer uso en el comercio y los registros de la marca Youtube en EE.UU y en el resto del mundo, así como su condición de ser una marca con un conocimiento extendido en Internet y a nivel mundial, alegadas por Google, con relación a las normas internacionales examinadas como cuestión previa, no cumplen con el primer requisito establecido en la Política, por lo que no es admisible pronunciamiento en tal sentido sobre las otras dos circunstancias contenidas en el artículo de la Política [dado que se trata de circunstancias copulativas].

En todo caso, la Política en su literal K "Disponibilidad de procedimientos judiciales" dispone que los requisitos establecidos en el párrafo 4 para el procedimiento administrativo obligatorio no impiden que el demandante (o demandado) sometan la controversia a un tribunal competente a fin de obtener una resolución independiente antes de que se inicie dicho procedimiento o después de su conclusión.

La Decisión fue pronunciada por Fanny Aguirre Garayar (Experto Único)

Google top question: to remove or not to remove?

Patricia Covarrubia November 01, 2011 No comments:

Google has published its Transparency Report. In it, Google explains the following: often we receive “requests from government agencies and courts around the world to remove content from our services and hand over user data.” The removal of material usually refers to allegations of defamation; violation of local laws prohibiting hate speech or pornography; ads that violated Google’s AdWords policies; copyright infringement and so forth.

Who has made the most requests to remove content?

During the first half of 2011 Brazil has come No 1. There were 224 applications made to Goggle to remove content from their various websites (we have covered some of these cases here and here). From these applications Google eliminated the content in 67% of the cases. Next in the list is Germany followed by United States. As a curiosity I kept looking some other countries and I noticed that Argentina requested content removal 21 times and the percentage of removal requests fully or partially complied with was 100% [certainly they will receive the IPtango award if there was such a thing – however we need to bear in mind that they are the masters of tango after all]

Who has requested the most data about users?
This time the fisrt place was given to United States with 5950 requests and a response rate of 93%. Yet, Brazil was the most active country in Latin America requesting such data: 703 applications were made and 87 % of this data requests was fully or partially complied with.

Previous material control on the internet would breach confidentiality

Patricia Covarrubia September 15, 2011 No comments:

The Brazilian Third Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has held that Services Providers are not required to apply any earlier control on material posted on the Internet, however they need to keep track and remove offensive content. This decision denied a claim for compensation against Google Brazil Internet Ltda and its site Orkut (social networking site) .

Background of the case
An Orkut’s user claimed that he was offended by the content published on this site. The first Instance court determined the removal of the offensive material (a photo album and its content) and payment of R$ 8,300 for moral damages. Google appealed and the Court dismissed it believing that the site would have developed tools to restrain abuses and to identify the user responsible for the offenses.

The case reached the STJ: Google claimed that the Court sentence was extra petita (judge holding something other than what was the requested action), since at no time the claimant asked for information about the user responsible for the said offences. It also argued that not having participated in the creation of Orkut’s offensive material it could not be held liable and be required to indemnify the victim -- under articles 182 and 927 of the Civil Code, the perpetrator of the offense is the only one required to compensate.

The rapporteur of the process, minister Nancy Andrighi, held that Google's liability should be restricted to the nature of the activity developed by it. To this effect, the services offered by the company via Orkut include confidentiality, security and inviolability of customers’ data. Therefore, "regarding the supervision of the information posted by users, it is not an inherent activity of the service, so it cannot be considered to be defective, in accordance with Article 14 of the CDC". Interestingly, the minister argued that if previous control (in this case by Google) of material is required, then it would be a breach of confidentiality of communications prohibited by Article 5, section XII of the Federal Constitution. Moreover, she claimed that early verification of the content would eliminate one of the biggest attractions of the Internet, which is the transmission of data in real time.

However, the minister argued that there is still responsibility for traffic information saying that "there is however the duty, once aware of the existence of a message which is offensive, to withdraw it immediately from the air". To this effect she noted that the company took the offensive material from the air as soon it was informed of the situation. In addition, Google maintains a channel for people, or non users who have had their identities stolen on Orkut, to request the removal of the account and report other abuses. Concluding, the minister removed Google’s obligation to indemnify.

The case is Process No REsp 1186616

Google is an uncontrollable monster!

Patricia Covarrubia August 17, 2011 No comments:

Brazil, 15 August, Google Brazil Internet Ltda. brought an appeal to the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) for having been obliged by a lower court to remove offensive content placed in Orkut - a social network and discussion site operated by Google.

The party affected, a health specialist in Rio Grande do Sul, claimed the removal of all offensive messages and images. It is claimed that the doctor suffered a wave of attacks on the network and he tried to use an existing tool on the site to prevent the transmission of the defamatory messages. The tool, however, did not allow the exclusion of all messages against him. He asked also for compensation for moral and material damage.

Google however claimed that it would be impossible to scan the network for defamatory content against the party affected and thus, claimed that the doctor should have provided the email address of the attackers and indicate the measures to be censored.

The company also argued that if they proceed to remove the content, this would violate the freedom of expression. Moreover, it mentions that there is no legislation requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to exert control of content placed on the Internet.

STJ
The Fourth Class of the Supreme Court did not consider the liability of the ISP. It only found that Google is obliged to delete the defamatory content of the pages struck against the victim, even without the provision of accurate email addresses from him.

The rapporteur, Luis Felipe Minister Solomon, considered that the lack of technical tools to correct problems does not exempt the company to seek solutions. "If Google has created an uncontrollable monster, it is only to be charged for any consequences generated by the lack of control users have of its social network," he said. Offensive messages could be captured by programming mechanisms or by a specialized staff, he added.

Yet, the responsibility is not automatic and does not occur at the time the message is posted on the network. The civil liability depends on the conduct, taking into consideration its responsibility and the damage experienced by others.

Process: REsp 1175675

Brazil: Google and its legal trouble

Patricia Covarrubia March 24, 2010 No comments:

While the IP community is still digesting the Google AdWords ruling, one always wonder about the Internet Service Provider active or passive role (see case comments by our cousin IPKat).

In the same vein, I found this news in today's newspaper. A Brazilian court in the northern state of Rondonia fined Google for not blocking pages of dirty jokes on its social networking site Orkut. In an appeal to the High Court (Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ)), Google Brazil argued that the company did not have the technical means or employees needed to police Orkut. The STJ observed that Google already implements such control on its pages in China.

The story began when the prosecutor brought civil action in defence of teenagers who were allegedly offended by virtual communities on Orkut. The communities questioned were: 'Pimenta Fofocas' (spicy gossip) and 'Pimenta Fofocas o Return' (spicy gossip return).

The High Court of Justice (STJ) reported that Google was ordered to pay a fine of approx. $2.800 for each day that the contents remain available.

I can observe that in this particular case, the court saw the ‘active’ role of Google.

Google blocks several of its internet tools in Cuba

Patricia Covarrubia December 04, 2009 2 comments:

The Cuban newspaper ‘Juventud Revelde’ reports that Google has blocked the webpage navigator Zeitgeist. Added to this, the Cubans Google Earth, Google Destktop Search, Google Code, Google Toolbar and Chrome are also upon those that cannot be accessed from the island.

In May this year, the newspaper criticised Microsoft for blocking MSN Messenger, which was functioning in the island since 1999. According to Microsoft the reason was that its services were limited (as for many other companies) because of the US blockade on Cuba. At that time, the newspaper questioned why after so many years of services they decided to obey such rule.

Today’s measure is again criticised by the newspaper. They rightly mentioned that this new measure “goes against the pronouncements of the current U.S. president, Barack Obama, who said he was committed to facilitate access to new technologies to the Cubans."

I cannot turn a blind eye to this type of news. For the last couple of weeks I have been criticising the administrative procedures and politics of certain countries in Latin America. This time however, I will have to agree with the fact that Google’s measure is out of order. Since 1962, Cuba suffers from a commercial and financial embargo from Washington. The question is: Didn’t Google know about it? Or...?? I honestly cannot think of any reason why after so many years they decided to block those programs.

Barrichello gana a Google.

Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) November 24, 2009 No comments:

Obviamente no se trata de una carrera de la F1, si no de un pleito iniciado por el piloto brasileño Rubens Barrichello en contra del buscador por lesiones a su honor, en concreto se trata de la existencia de más de 300 perfiles falsos en la red social de Google: Orkut

El piloto había avisado a Google desde julio de 2006 julio de 2006 que retirara esos perfiles, pero no obtuvo ninguna respuesta. Como no recibió respuesta alguna, Barrichello denunció el caso, tras lo cual, un tribunal de Sao Paulo le dio la razón.

Google ha sido condenado a pagar cerca de $700.000 USD en concepto de indemnización y además deberá además retirar los perfiles falsos y los comentarios ofensivos sobre Barrichello, y en caso de no poder hacerlo sufrirá una multa diaria de 590 dólares por día hasta la retirada de los perfiles

Si bien la sentencia condena a Google, seguramente la misma originará que el buscador busque la forma de controlar los contenidos de terceros…

La sentencia es de primera instancia y seguramente será recurrida por Google.

Google y Yahoo condenados por daño moral en Argentina

Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez August 05, 2009 No comments:

Según nos ha hecho saber Guillermo Navarro, el portal iprofesional.com, informa que la Justicia argentina ha condenado a Yahoo y a Google a indenmizar a la ex Bandana Virginia Da Cunha por un monto de $100.000, que deberá ser afrontado por ambos en partes iguales. La resolución se basa en el daño moral (daño contra el honor y la propia imagen) que sufrió la cantante por la divulgación de su imagen en sitios de contenido pornográfico.

Parece ser que, en Argentina, no se trata de un caso aislado, sino que se suma a los más de ochenta casos en los que los jueces han comenzado a limitar la libertad de los buscadores al momento de publicar y divulgar los datos personales, tanto de figuras públicas como de las personas no conocidas. Otro asunto ejemplar en este sentido es el embargo preventivo de $746.000 impuesto a Google el abril pasado a raiz de una demanda iniciada por una popular actriz.

Debe observarse que la sentencia sólo reconoce daños morales y no, como exigía el abogado demandante, daños materiales. Google ha decidido recurrir el fallo.