Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content
Ahunur Açıkgöz, Murat GürelLegal challenges resulting from violations of intellectual and industrial property rights on the internet continue to preserve its actuality due to increased internet usage and enhanced Internet accessibility. One of these challenges is whether digital platforms serving as host providers are liable for content provider infringements. This issue is particularly crucial considering the increasingly integral role that digital platforms are playing in relation to online digital content, as opposed to their limited activities. In this study, the liability of digital platforms arising from intellectual and industrial right infringements is examined according to the legal qualification of the platform as an infringer or accessory. Legislation of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisprudence, which serve as the basis for the related regulations in Turkish law, are also considered. In the study we discuss particularly how the current liabilities of digital platforms as accessories (secondary liability) would be affected by the recent Act No. 7416, amending Electronic Commerce Act No. 6563. We also discuss the unjustifiable necessity of the fragmented analysis resulting from the amendments and the inconsistencies brought about by the fragmented provisions. Additionally, we offer some suggestions to eliminate these inconsistencies and align Turkish law with EU law.
Başkasına Ait İçerikteki Fikrî ve Sınai Hak İhlalleri Nedeniyle Dijital Platformların Hukuki Sorumluluğu
Ahunur Açıkgöz, Murat GürelBilgi ve içerik paylaşımının gerçekleştirildiği internetin kullanım alanlarının genişlemesi ve internete erişilebilirliğin artmasının sonucu olarak fikrî ve sınai hakların internet aracılığıyla ihlal edilmesinin yol açtığı hukuki sorunlar güncelliğini korumaya devam etmektedir. Bu sorunlardan birisi de yer sağlayıcı sıfatına sahip olan dijital platformların ihlalden sorumlu olup olmayacağıdır. Özellikle; internetin henüz gelişim aşamasında olduğu dönemde faaliyetleri sınırlı olabilecek yer sağlayıcıların aksine, ihlale konu içeriğin internette yer alması bakımından dijital platformların günümüzdeki faaliyetlerinin çok daha etkin olması karşısında bu sorun daha da önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada da dijital platformların fikrî ve sınai hak ihlallerinden kaynaklanan sorumluluğu, platformun mütecaviz ya da mütecavizin fiiline yardım eden sıfatına sahip olmasına göre incelenmiştir. Anılan inceleme yapılırken konuya ilişkin hükümlerin mehazı olan Avrupa Birliği düzenlemeleri ve Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı kararlarından da yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmada özellikle dijital platformun yardım eden sıfatıyla sorumluluğu ele alınırken Elektronik Ticaret Kanunu m 9’da, 7416 sayılı Kanun ile yapılan değişikliğin dijital platformların mevcut durumdaki hukuki sorumluluğunu ne şekilde etkileyeceği tartışılacaktır. Bu çerçevede, anılan değişikliğin, Türk hukukunda dijital platformların yardım eden sıfatıyla sorumluluğu değerlendirilirken parçalı bir inceleme yapılmasını zorunlu kılmasına ve bu parçalı incelemenin yol açtığı tutarsızlıklara da değinilecektir. Çalışmada ayrıca söz konusu tutarsızlıkların giderilmesi ve Avrupa Birliği düzenlemeleri ve Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı içtihatlarıyla uyum sağlanmasına yönelik olarak birtakım önerilere de yer verilecektir.
Digital platforms allow third parties share content and offer goods and services to internet users. If the shared content is illegal, content providers are liable for these infringements provided that the related act is not considered an exception under the law. It can also be considered that digital platforms are liable for these infringements because the infringement was caused by content providers’ usage of their infrastructure. However, the answer to the question of whether digital platforms are liable for content providers’ activities is not simple.
The liability of digital platforms for third parties’ infringing acts should be examined in two ways. First, the digital platform’s liability as an infringer (direct/ primary liability) and second, as an accessory (indirect/secondary liability).
Regarding the platform’s liability as an infringer, digital platforms shall not be considered as infringers who perform the infringing act as long as they are not the content providers. However, the line between being a content provider or not is not always clear. For trademark infringements, the CJEU does not consider platforms as “users” of trademarks. However, for intellectual property infringements, the CJEU discussed whether these platforms’ acts constitute communication to the public and thus violate the rights of intellectual property owners. In its case law, the CJEU widened the scope of the right to communication to the public and accepted that platforms may also be considered infringers under certain conditions. Nevertheless, some scholars have criticised the Court for considering subjective criteria for infringements of intellectual and industrial rights. But we have to emphasise that the Court’s main concern in this approach is its will to harmonise Member States’ laws on that matter. Therefore, we believe that the CJEU’s approach should not be directly transferred to Turkish law because Turkey is not a member state.
Not accepting the platforms as infringers does not mean that they are not liable for infringing material. Because they provide technical means to third parties’ infringing acts, they may be liable for their actions. However, the legal nature of this liability should be the so-called secondary liability. According to Turkish law, in order to liable as an accessory, the accessor should be acted in fault. When determining whether the host provider has committed an error, the provisions of Turkish Internet legislation should be considered.
In terms of providing technical means, digital platforms are already qualified as host providers. According to Article 5/1 of Act No. 5651, host providers have no general obligation to monitor or control the information they store or transmit. Despite the different assessments of the Turkish Court of Cassation and the doctrine, this provision should not be viewed as a liability exemption but as a standard for determining the host provider’s fault.
Additionally, according to Article 6 of Regulation 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act-DSA) of the EU, the so-called safe harbour provision, host providers shall not be liable for the information they store or transmit under the conditions prescribed in Article 6/1/a-b. The CJEU applies this rule only to passive providers on the basis of its purpose. Until Act No. 7416s amendments to Electronic Commerce Act No. 6563 there have not been any safe harbour provisions for host providers have been established in Turkish law.
According to Article 9/1 of the E-Commerce Act, which entered into force on 01.01.2023, intermediary service providers shall not be liable for the content offered by the service (content) providers. This rule applies only to “intermediary service providers” which have a more limited scope than host providers. Intermediary service providers are a subset of host providers. Moreover, Articles 9/2 and 3, the exemptions of the safe harbour, are only envisaged for “electronic commerce intermediary service providers” which also has more limited scope than host and intermediary service providers. These fragmented provisions make it difficult to assess the liability of digital platforms because the liability of host providers, intermediary service providers, and e-commerce intermediary service providers is regulated in a different way, which is sometimes contradictory. However, there is no justifiable basis for a different treatment for the liability of host providers. For intellectual and industrial rights violations, there is no different treatment in EU law, and Turkey’s legislation should follow this path.
In addition, the liability exemption for host providers should not be understood in absolute terms. This exemption should be based on the rationale of the rule. In particular, a balance should be struck between the interests of internet users, rightsholders, and host providers. Therefore, considering the CJEU’s decisions, the host provider’s liability in terms of offering.
