|
Did the French Get it Wrong? Website liable for link |
French courts in two recent privacy cases fined Web 2.0 sites for external content they linked to, either by hyperlink or RSS feeds.
The Paris Court of First Instance (Tribunal de grande instance, Paris) March 26 fined Bloobox.net, publisher of Fuzz.fr, [Euros]1,000 ($1,580) in damages and [Euros]1,500 ($2,370) in court costs for violating the privacy of actor Olivier Martinez, according to court documents (Monsieur O v. S.A.R.L. Bloobox Net, T.G.I. Paris, No. 08/52543, 3/26/08).
Fuzz.fr is modeled after the U.S. site digg.com, where users submit websites, pages, and stories which they find of value and want to bring to the attention of other readers. Bloobox.net (a site which provides content and syndiaction for news and stories to Fuzz.fr) is a automated site, as is Fuzz.fr, but the French courts stated that because of the posts categorization, Fuzz.fr had deliberately selected and placed the material.
In a similar case, the Nanterre Court of First Instance (Tribunal de grande instance, Nanterre) Feb. 28 fined AADSOFT Com, owner of Dico du Net (www.dicodunet.com) [Euros]1,000 for running an RSS feed to a gossip article claiming that film director Olivier Dahan was cavorting with American actress Sharon Stone (Monsieur O v. S.A.R.L. AADSOFT Com, T.G.I. Nanterre, No. 08/00495, 2/28/08).
Dicodunet.com posted a title and short summary of the article, with a link to the complete article on Gala.fr, the website of a print magazine specializing in celebrity gossip. The court said that by subscribing to the RSS feed, the site's owner had acted as a publisher, and had to accept responsibility for the information appearing on its site
The French courts may have it wrong as to what is a publisher and what is control. Very different worlds between the French laws and the U.S. laws.
Trackback(0)
 |
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments