Haven principles can save today's headlines?

As the copyright storm in today's headlines intensified, the media and the headlines today all rumored to be rumored to claim substantial copyright fees without taking any substantive action. Today's headline is also untenable.

The focus of the controversy still lies around infringement. Today, the headlines call it the role of a search engine. It only grasps and diverts, and there is no infringement.

NetEase contacted Zhang Yan, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property disputes, to explain the two sides' statements. The main points are summarized as follows.

1, search engine argument is difficult to set up

The law does not have a clear definition of search engines, but Wikipedia, Baidu Encyclopedia of "search engine" entry mentioned, the search engine refers to the automatic collection of information from the Internet, after some finishing, to provide users with the query system. The working principle of a search engine includes collecting information, organizing information, and accepting inquiries.

From this point of view, today's headlines do not match the characteristics of search engines.

Regardless of whether the search engine, headlines today have the authority to crawl the content of the site, depending on whether these sites are authorized today's headlines, today headlines that has reached cooperation with thousands of media sites, but this statement was Tencent and Sohu denied yesterday .

2, "Crawl" can not be guilty of

Fetching non-infringement is not valid.

First of all, even if the website authorization captures the contents of the headlines today, it can only be the original content. The online media is authorized by the media to publish the content. However, it does not have the right to authorize the content of the media to other platforms for reprinting or crawling.

For example, the Beijing News authorized NetEase reprint its reports, NetEase authorized today headlines to crawl its content, but authorized content should not contain the contents of Beijing News, or Netease and today's headlines are required to bear the tort liability.

Second, whether reprinted or crawled, the headlines today are "using" the content of other media. In today's headlines, a large amount of paper-based media has not been authorized to use it.

The third headline today after crawling the page for the second processing, retaining only the site LOGO and article content, and add their own comments and other modules, this page processing also need to go through the website permission, if not Permission can also be identified as infringement.

3, safe haven can save today's headlines?

Haven principle that the State Council promulgated the "Regulations on the Protection of the Right to Information Propagation Network" provides that network service providers to provide information storage space for the service object for the service object through the information network to provide works, performances, audio and video products, and have the following conditions , Do not bear the liability for compensation.

(5) After receiving the obligee's notice, it shall delete the works, performances, audio and video products deemed by the obligees to be infringed in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations.

In other words, as long as the deletion of the content or disconnected, you can not assume liability, but the premise of this principle is "network service providers to provide information to the object storage space," the headlines today obviously not the community or UGC website, its All content is generated by its technical means.

So today's headlines do not apply this principle.

At the same time, "Article 21 of the Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Networks" stipulates that in order to improve the efficiency of network transmission, network service providers automatically store works, performances, audio and video products obtained from other network service providers and automatically provide services according to technical arrangements Objects provided, and have the following conditions, do not assume liability for compensation:

(1) Works, performances, audio and video products that have not been automatically stored

(2) The former network service providers who provide works, performances, audio and video products shall not be obliged to master the clients to obtain the works, performances, audio and video products;

(3) When the original network service provider modifies, deletes or shields the work, performance, audio and video products, it shall be automatically modified, deleted or blocked according to the technical arrangements.

Today's headlines in the crawling process did not change the content of the work, but the page for the second processing, this method is in line with the first exemption clause still need legal definition.

However, Article 23 of the said regulations refers to those who knowingly or should be aware of the infringement of the linked works, performances, audio-visual recordings and video-recordings, and shall bear joint tort liability.

Therefore, on the whole, today's headlines should know whether the content infringes or not, even if the situation of Article 21, Article 1 is still violated.

4, the original crawl is illegal?

In the case of authorized by the site, if you crawl the original page is not processed, whether constitutes an infringement?

According to the copyright law, it can not be used if the obligee's statement is not permitted, that is, if the author of the content (paper media, original author, etc.) does not authorize the website to authorize other media to use the content that he provides to the website, Authorize other media.

However, this provision needs to be defined separately as some websites and authors sign agreements that stipulate that websites have the right to dispose of their work, including external authorizations, while others may not.

At the moment, what the headlines offer today is not enough to exempt them from liability for infringement, but the process of defining the content will not be too easy if the media sue. (Josie)