美法院裁定：用户侵权不等于网站无责

当一家八卦网站贴出碧昂丝的疑似孕照时，它肯定没有想到会引发这样大的反响——法院做出的一项重要的版权裁决甚至可能导致该网站的业务模式被彻底封杀，而其他一些靠用户上传内容而生存的网站也可能面临重大危机。

上周五，加州联邦上诉法庭下达了一项对美国知名网站LiveJournal非常不利的裁决。LiveJournal是美国境内的一个综合性SNS交友网站，旗下的博客论坛“Oh No They Didn’t”在互联网上有一定的号召力，用户可以向该论坛上传明星新闻并进行讨论。

这场官司的起因，是一家叫做Mavrix的狗仔队公司起诉LiveJournal侵犯了他们拍摄的碧昂丝照片以及另外19张照片的版权。据加州联邦上诉法庭称，Marvix是一个“专门在热带地区偷拍明星照片”的组织。

LiveJournal立即祭起了《数字千年版权法案》（Digital Millennium Copyright Act）的大旗来洗脱自己的责任——这也是一个早就被其他网站用滥了的招数。根据该法案，只要网站遵循了一定的步骤，就可以免除用户通过其网站做出某些不当行为的责任。2014年，一位联邦法官认为，LiveJournal的做法并未超出《数字千年版权法案》的所谓“安全港原则”，因而驳回了这项诉讼。

Mavrix决定继续上诉，而娱乐行业对《法案》袒护盗版行为的做法早已不满，纷纷上书支持Mavrix公司的上诉。与此同时，一些主要依赖用户贡献内容的知名网站（如Pinterest和Etsy等），则递交陈诉状支持LiveJournal，称现行的《数字千年版权法案》并无不妥之处。

在上周五的裁决中，加州联邦上诉法庭裁决委员会的三名法官形成了一致意见，果断推翻了下层法官的裁定，表示一审判决并未充分考虑LiveJournal对论坛版主的管理情况，因为论坛版主对于将用户上传的哪些照片显示在网站上，是拥有很大的自由裁量权的。

加州联邦上诉法庭在裁决中写道：“Mavrix提交的证据表明，LiveJournal给它的版主们赋予了明确的和不同等级的网帖审查权……虽然LiveJournal将这些版主称为‘志愿者’，但版主们确实在LiveJournal的业务模式中扮演了至关重要的作用。”

该法庭还指出，LiveJournal的版主们发布的很多照片上有Mavrix公司的官方水印。

法庭最后指出，此案将被发回至下级法院重审，下一步要重点查明这些版主是否是LiveJournal的“代理人”。如果答案是肯定的，势必将摧毁该网站的“安全港”原则。即便这些版主不是LiveJournal的“代理人”，法院也要查明他们是否了解或明知这些照片的版权属于Mavrix。

最后，联邦上诉法庭还指出，下级法院的法官还需进一步查明LiveJournal是否利用其掌握的侵权照片获得了利益。

该裁决并不是认定LiveJournal败诉的最终判决，它只是要求下级法院对原判决进行重审。然而这份裁决无论是从结构还是语气上都强烈表明，联邦上诉法院对此事已有结论，那就是LiveJournal的行为的确侵犯了版权。

对其它网站的意义

加州联邦上诉法庭的此次裁决公布后，包括电子前线基金会（Electronic Frontier Foundation）在内的一些数字化倡议团体纷纷表示，上周的这项裁决严重侵害了“安全港”原则，甚至可能导致更多的网站遭到版权方面的诉讼。

另外，此次裁决可能为进一步缩窄“安全港”原则的法律行动打开大门，并且可能给Facebook和YouTube等知名网站带来一连串的问题。更何况一直以来，娱乐行业针对这两家网站管控侵权行为不利的投诉从来就没有断过。

然而从另一方面看，该裁决的影响或许并不会波及“Oh No The Didn’t”博客以外的较大范围。该网站之所以受到了联邦上诉法庭的“特殊照顾”，也是由于它实在太不长心——比如它发布的一些图片显然印着Marvrix公司的水印。

纽约市一位长期从事知识产权保护的律师艾德·克拉利斯认为，此次裁决并不等于将所有依赖《数字千年版权法案》生存的网站一棍子打死，但它显然向这些网站发送了一个信号——对于其他人发布的内容，还是不要掺合得太深。

“不经过真人版主的干预，图片是不可能被发布到网站上的，这也不禁令人怀疑，被告是否实际上是侵权行为的同犯。这些因素是此案中的重点，并且也将继续受到各大网站的密切关注。到目前为止，法院对于网站在保有豁免权的情况下筛选和编辑内容的行为还是留了很大的余地的。”

而版权的所有者们很可能对此项裁决表示欢迎，因为他们一直以来都致力于缩小“安全港”原则的范围。

另外，此次裁决也表明，自从维亚康姆（Viacom）起诉YouTube侵犯版权一案宣告败诉，导致“安全港”原则的力量进一步加强之后，法律界针对网站侵权问题的看法已经有了一定的改变。

自维亚康姆与YouTube一案于2014年结案以来，美国娱乐界一直锲而不舍地针对该原则发难，并已经赢得了几次重大胜利。其中就包括上周五LiveJournal一案的裁决。此外在2016年，一位联邦法官也曾裁定互联网服务提供商考克斯通讯公司（Cox Communications）的行为不适用“安全港”原则，并责令其为用户的非法下载行为缴纳了2500万美元的罚款。（财富中文网）

译者：朴成奎

When a gossip site posted a photo of a pregnant-looking Beyoncé, it probably didn't anticipate the fallout: A major copyright decision that could imperil the site's business model and undermine a legal defense used by other websites that depend on user content.

The decision, handed down Friday by a federal appeals court in California, came as a defeat for LiveJournal, which hosts the popular blog called "Oh No They Didn't," a forum for users to upload news about celebrities and chat about them.

The ruling came after a paparazzi operation called Mavrix, which the court describes as "specializing in candid photographs of celebrities in tropical locations," sued Live Journal for copyright infringement over the Beyoncé photo and 19 other photos.

LiveJournal responded by invoking a familiar legal defense—a law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which shields websites from the actions of their users so long as the sites follow certain steps. In 2014, a federal judge agreed LiveJournal qualified for one of these so-called "safe harbors" under the DMCA and agreed to throw out the case.

Mavrix decided to appeal, prompting the entertainment industry, which has long groused that the safe harbors protect copyright cheats, to file briefs in support of the company. Meanwhile, well-known websites that depend on user contributions—including Pinterest and Etsy—filed to support LiveJournal, arguing the current DMCA rules work well.

In its ruling on Friday, a unanimous three judge panel decisively overturned the lower judge's ruling, saying he failed to properly consider LiveJournal's use of moderators, who appeared to have broad discretion to choose which photos submitted by users would appear on the site.

In support of its decision, the appeals court wrote that Mavrix "presented evidence that LiveJournal gave its moderators explicit and varying levels of authority to screen posts." It went on to say that "Although LiveJournal calls the moderators 'volunteers,' the moderators performed a vital function in LiveJournal’s business model."

The court also noted LiveJournal's moderators published a number of photos even though they were imprinted with Mavrix watermarks.

The court concluded by sending the case back to the lower court to reconsider the case, and find out if the moderators should be found to be "agents" of LiveJournal—a finding that would destroy the site's safe harbor protection. And in the event the moderators were not agents, the appeals court said the judge should consider if they had actual or "red flag" knowledge that the photos infringed on Mavrix's copyright.

Finally, the appeals court instructed the judge to also look at the larger context of whether Live Journal made money from infringing photos that were under its control.

The ruling is not a final defeat for LiveJournal since it simply asks the lower court to reconsider its original decision. But the structure and tone of the ruling strongly nudges the court towards only one conclusion: copyright infringement.

What it means for websites

The decision has already led some digital advocacy groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to warn that Friday's ruling is a dangerous erosion of safe harbors, and could expose more websites to questionable copyright claims.

Meanwhile, the ruling could open the door to further legal challenges seeking to narrow safe harbors still further. Such a development could post trouble to likes of Facebook and YouTube, which face ongoing complaints from the entertainment industry over how they police copyright.

On the other hand, the decision may not ripple far beyond "Oh No They Didn't." That's because the site did things that appeared to earn the special disapproval of the appeals court—such as posting a number of photos clearly imprinted with Mavrix's watermark.

According to Ed Klaris, a long-time intellectual property lawyer in New York, the opinion is hardly a death knell for those relying on DMCA protections, but certainly a warning not to get too involved in posting others' content:

"Images could not be posted without human moderators' intervention, raising the question whether the defendant was in effect an accomplice to the infringement. These facts forced a trial, which will cause websites to pay close attention. Until now, courts have given broad leeway to filter and curate content without losing immunity."

Copyright owners, meanwhile, are likely to toast the decision as part of their long-running campaign to reduce the scope of safe harbor defenses.

It also shows how the legal landscape has been changing since the end of a landmark copyright lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube, which resulted in numerous defeats for Viacom, and appeared to confirm the ongoing strength of safe harbors.

Since the conclusion of that case in 2014, the entertainment industry has chipped away at the defense, earning several significant victories. These include last week's LiveJournal ruling, and a 2016 decision in which a federal judge stripped safe harbor protection from the Internet service provider Cox Communications, and forced it to pay $25 million over illegal downloading by its customers.