Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005    Full Text (PDF)

Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content

Ahunur AçıkgözMurat Gürel

Legal 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. 

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005    Full Text (PDF)

Başkasına Ait İçerikteki Fikrî ve Sınai Hak İhlalleri Nedeniyle Dijital Platformların Hukuki Sorumluluğu

Ahunur AçıkgözMurat Gürel

Bilgi 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.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


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.


PDF View

References

  • Açıkgöz A, ‘Link Verme ve Eser Sahibinin Umuma İletim Hakkının Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Kararları Işığında İncelenmesi’ (2022) 24(4) Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 217-270. google scholar
  • Akçura Karaman T, ‘Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğunda Hukuka Aykırılık Unsurunun İrdelenmesi ve Tehlike Kuralı’ (2004) 3(1) Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 554-583. google scholar
  • Angelopoulos C, ‘On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’ (2017), <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2947800> erişim tarihi: 30.11.2022. google scholar
  • -------- ve Smet S, ‘Notice-and-fair-balance: how to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liabil ity’ (2016) 8(2) Journal of Media Law 266-301. google scholar
  • Arroyo Amayuelas E, ‘E-Commerce Directive’ in Reiner Schulze ve Dirk Staudenmayer (eds), EU Digital Law Article by Article Commentary (Nomos/Hart 2020). google scholar
  • Arslan K, Belgeli Akreditifte Lehtarın Hukuki Durumu (Beta 1995). google scholar
  • Atamer Y, Haksız Fiil Doğan Sorumluluğun Sınırlandırılması (Beta 1999). google scholar
  • Ateş M, ‘Sosyal Medya Aktörlerinin Hukuki Sorumluluğu ve Bilhassa Telif Haklarının İhlalinden Doğan Sorumlulukları’ in Tekin Memiş (ed), Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku Yıllığı 2013 (Yetkin 2015). google scholar
  • Baistrocchi P, ‘Liability of Intermediary Service Providers in the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce’ (2003) 19(1) Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 111-130. google scholar
  • Başpınar V ve Kocabey D, İnternette Fikrî Hakların Korunması (Yetkin 2007). google scholar
  • Bersem J. ‘Die Haftung von Intermediaren für Markenverletzungen heute und morgen -Störerhaftung oder taterschaftliche Haftung nach dem Vorbild des Urheberrechts?-’ (2023) 125(5) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht 307-315. google scholar
  • Bozbel S, ‘Fikrî Hakların İhlali Nedeniyle İhtiyati Tedbir Yoluyla İnternet Sitelerine Erişim Engellenebilir mi?’ in Tekin Memiş (ed), Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku Yıllığı 2009 (On İki Levha 2009). google scholar
  • ---------- Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku, (On İki Levha 2015). google scholar
  • Büyüksağiş E ve Kahveci D, ‘’Çiçeksepeti Kararı’ Üzerine Eleştirel Değerlendirmeler’ (2022) 48(2) Yargıtay Dergisi 305-320. google scholar
  • Çelik A, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Üzerindeki Çoğaltma ve Yayma Haklarını İhlali - İhlalin Sonuçları (Seçkin 2011). google scholar
  • Çolak U, Türk Marka Hukuku (4. Baskı, On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Çolak U, Türk Patent Hukuku, (Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Eren F, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (26. Baskı, Yetkin 2021). google scholar
  • Farano B M, ‘Internet Intermediaries’ Liability for Copyright and Trademark Infringement: Reconciling the EU and U.S. Approaches’ (2012) TTLF Working Papers No 14 <https://law. stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/300252/doc/slspublic/farano_ wp14-4.pdf> erişim tarihi: 30.11.2022. google scholar
  • Geiger C, Frosio G ve Izyumenko E, ‘Intermediary Liability and Fundamental Rights’ in Giancarlo Frosio (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Intermediary Liability Online (Oxford 2020). google scholar
  • Gezder Ü, İçerik Sağlayıcı ve Yer Sağlayıcının Hukuki Sorumluluğu ve Sorumluluk Muafiyeti (Beta 2017). google scholar
  • Grisse K. ‘After the storm—examining the final version of Article 17 of the new Directive (EU) 2019/790’ (2019) 14(11) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 887-899. google scholar
  • Güneş İ, Uygulamada Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukuku (2. Baskı, Seçkin 2015). google scholar
  • Hoeren T ve Yankova S, ‘The Liability of Internet Intermediaries-The German Perspective’ (2012) IIC 501-531. google scholar
  • Hoffman F. ‘Plattformhaftung für rechtswidrige Drittinhalte im Marken- und Designrecht Zugleich Besprechung von EuGH “Louboutin”’ (2023) 125(4) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht 238-242. google scholar
  • Julia-Barcelo R ve Koelman K J, ‘Intermediary Liability in the E-Commerce Directive: So Far So Good But It’s Not Enough’ (2000) 16(4) Computer Law & Security Report 231-239. google scholar
  • Karaaslan P, ‘Fikir ve Sanat Eserlerinin Teknik Gereklilik Nedeniyle Geçici Çoğaltılması’ (2022) 8(1) TFM 29-49. google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu A, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (22. Baskı, Turhan 2018). google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu A, Sınai Haklarla Karşılaştırılmalı Fikrî Haklar (7. Baskı, Turhan 2021). google scholar
  • Koelman K ve Hugenholtz B, ‘Workshop on Service Provider Liability’ (1999) World Intellectual Property Organization <https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/wipo99.pdf.> erişim tarihi: 30.11.2022. google scholar
  • Kurtulan G, ‘Haksız Fiilde Hukuka Aykırılık Unsuru’ (2017) 23(1) MÜHF-HAD 465-503. google scholar
  • Lubasz D ve Namyslowska M, ‘E-Commerce Directive’ in Reiner Schulze ve Dirk Staudenmayer (eds), EU Digital Law Article by Article Commentary (Nomos/Hart 2020). google scholar
  • Memiş T, Fikrî Hukuk Bakımından İnternet Ortamında Müzik Sunumu, (Seçkin 2002). google scholar
  • Miriam B C, ‘The Digital Services Act from Intermediary Liability to Platform Regulation’ (2021) 12(5) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 361-380. google scholar
  • Nordemann, J B, ‘Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyrighted Content - Regulatory Action Needed?’ (2017) (In-Depth Analysis European Parliament - Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union 2017) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ IDAN/2017/614207/IPOL_IDA(2017)614207_EN.pdf> erişim tarihi: 30.11.2022. google scholar
  • Oğuz S, ‘Telif Hakkı İhlallerinden İnternet Servis Sağlayıcıların Sorumlulukları’ (2008) 12(1-2) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 149-182. google scholar
  • Ohly A, ‘Die Verantwortlichkeit von Intermediaren’ (2015) ZUM 308-318. google scholar
  • ---------- ‘The Broad Concept of ‘Communication to the Public’ in recent CJEU Judgements and the Liability of Intermediaries: Primary, Secondary or Unitary Liability’ (2018) 13(8) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 664-675. google scholar
  • ----------- ‘The Liability of Intermediaries for Trade Mark Infringement’ in G.B. Dinwoodie ve M.D. Janis (eds) Research Handbook on Trademark Law Reform (Edgar Elgar Publishing 2021) google scholar
  • --------- ‘Red soles, a marketplace and the categories of trade mark liablity: Louboutin v Amazon before CJEU’ (2022) 17(7) JIPLP 575-585. google scholar
  • Öztan F, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukuku (Turhan 2008). google scholar
  • Rauer N ve Bibi, A, ‘Die fortentwickelte Intermediarshaftung im Urhberrecht’ (2021) ZUM 819-828. google scholar
  • Reisoğlu S, Türk Hukukunda ve Bankacılık Uygulamasında Akreditif (Ayyıldız Matbaası 1995). google scholar
  • Riefa C, ‘The End of Internet Service Providers Liability as We Know It - Uncovering Consumer Interest in CJEU Case C-324/09 (L’Oreal/eBay)’ (2012) 1(2) Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 104-112. google scholar
  • Rosati E ‘Why a reform on hosting providers’ safe harbour is unnecessary under EU copyright law’ (2016) CREATe Working Paper 2016/11, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2830440 erişim tarihi: 30.11.2022. google scholar
  • --------- ‘The Louboutin/Amazon cases (C-148/21 and C-184/21) and Primary Liability Under EU Trade Mark Law’ (2022) 44(7) European Intellectual Property Review 435-440. google scholar
  • Synodinou T-E ‘Intermediaries’ Liability for Online Copyright Infringement in the EU: Evolutions and Confusions’ (2015) 31 Computer Law & Security Review 57-67. google scholar
  • Tandoğan H, ‘Türk Mes’uliyet Hukuku’ (İlk bası 1961, Tıpkı Bası Vedat 2010). google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku (5. Baskı, Vedat 2012). google scholar
  • Tüzüner Ö, ‘Haksız Fiil Ekseninde Gittigidiyor İçtihadı’ in Tekin Memiş (ed) Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku Yıllığı 2013 (Yetkin 2015). google scholar
  • Valimaki M, ‘Liability of Online Intermediary for Copyright Infringement’ (Thesis for the Faculty of Law Helsinki 1999) <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14917033.pdf> erişim tarihi: 3.12.2022. google scholar
  • Wullschleger M, Die Durchsetzung des Urheberrechts im Internet (Stampfli 2015). google scholar
  • Yasaman Z, ‘Avrupa Birliği ve Türk Hukuku Bakımından İnternet Yer Sağlayıcılarının Marka İhlalleri Kapsamında Sorumlulukları’ (2019) 27(2) MAAD 263-291. google scholar
  • Yusufoğlu Bilgin F, ‘Fikrî Mülkiyet Haklarının İnternet Ortamında Korunması’ in Fikrî Mülkiyet Hukuku Çalıştayı Bildiriler Kitabı (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi 2020) 463-528. google scholar
  • --------------------- Dijital Piyasalarda Yer Sağlayıcıların Hukuki Sorumluluğu (On İki Levha 2022). google scholar
  • Zimmerman, M, ‘Your DMCA Safe Harbour Questions Answered’ (Fenwick & West LLP 2017) <https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.pdf> erişim tarihi: 3.12.2022 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Açıkgöz, A., & Gürel, M. (2024). Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content. Istanbul Law Review, 82(3), 693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


AMA

Açıkgöz A, Gürel M. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content. Istanbul Law Review. 2024;82(3):693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


ABNT

Açıkgöz, A.; Gürel, M. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 82, n. 3, p. 693-750, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Açıkgöz, Ahunur, and Murat Gürel. 2024. “Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content.” Istanbul Law Review 82, no. 3: 693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


Chicago: Humanities Style

Açıkgöz, Ahunur, and Murat Gürel. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content.” Istanbul Law Review 82, no. 3 (Dec. 2024): 693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


Harvard: Australian Style

Açıkgöz, A & Gürel, M 2024, 'Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 693-750, viewed 13 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Açıkgöz, A. and Gürel, M. (2024) ‘Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content’, Istanbul Law Review, 82(3), pp. 693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005 (13 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Açıkgöz, Ahunur, and Murat Gürel. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 82, no. 3, 2024, pp. 693-750. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


Vancouver

Açıkgöz A, Gürel M. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 13 Dec. 2024 [cited 13 Dec. 2024];82(3):693-750. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005


ISNAD

Açıkgöz, Ahunur - Gürel, Murat. Legal Liability of Digital Platforms for Infringements on Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights from Third Parties’ Content”. Istanbul Law Review 82/3 (Dec. 2024): 693-750. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.3.0005



TIMELINE


Submitted08.12.2023
Accepted26.08.2024
Published Online18.09.2024

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.