On January 10, 2019, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Rome issued a decision on the applicability of the exemptions of liability provided for in Directive 2000/31 EC to internet service providers. With this decision, the video sharing platform Vimeo – which offers services similar to those of YouTube – was ordered to pay Euro 8.5 million  in damages to Mediaset – the largest commercial broadcaster in Italy.

The decision brings to an end proceedings which lasted more than six years commenced by the well-known Italian television broadcaster after realizing that numerous excerpts of its own television programmes were being published on the defendant’s platform. According to Mediaset, Vimeo – even though not itself responsible for the act of uploading – should nevertheless be held liable for such publications, since it had not removed the disputed content upon receipt of the plaintiff’s requests which were sent before and after the commencement of the proceedings.

Vimeo requested that the case be dismissed and based its defence on the argument that it was to be classified as a mere intermediary which does not control the content published by users and is therefore covered by the exemptions from liability under Directive 2000/31 EC. Regarding the requests received, before and after the start of the proceedings, Vimeo considered removing those individual videos accessible through specific links (URLs) identified by the righ tholders – and such removals were made by Vimeo – was sufficient action on its part. On the other hand Vimeo alleged that it was under no obligation to remove videos which – though extracted from the same programmes as those set in the requests – were published on different links (URLs).

With the decision of 10 January, the Court of Rome upheld the claims of the plaintiff and held Vimeo liable for negligence having failed to comply with what the Court regarded as its removal obligations.

The Judge, in reaching its decision, reiterated a consolidated approach of both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal of Rome, dismissing Vimeo’s argument on the need to specify links (URLs). The Court found that there was ‘no legal basis of the sector, nor Community case-law’ which obliges the right holder to communicate link (URL) data to the provider, whereas ‘a precise indication of the programme’ titles’ must be regarded as sufficient to obtain the removal of all the videos extracted from the programmes themselves. In fact, the Court of Rome confirmed that the ‘URL is technical data that does not coincide with the individual detrimental content on the digital platform, but only represents the ‘address’ where the content is available’.

The Court of Rome also pointed out that providers are always required to comply with the ‘duty of care’ obligation so that it is reasonable to expect – in order to detect and prevent certain types of illegal activities – that the level of care required is determined by the state of the art.

In this case, in the opinion of the Court Appointed Expert, there are technologies currently in existence (so-called ‘video fingerprinting’) that allow the provider to ‘identify, within the material present on its digital platform, material corresponding to specific illegal content, even without the prior knowledge of the URL’.

According to the Court, ‘it would be reasonable’ to expect Vimeo to use the existing technology ‘to identify [ex-post] the specific audiovisual content illegally published on its website, following the appropriate request’ received by Mediaset.

Vimeo, having ‘limited itself to remove from its own website only the infringing contents’ Mediaset had identified with the URL ‘without making any further effort made possible by the state of the art to also identify and remove further audiovisual contents’ extracted from the same television programmes (reported by the copyright holder in the requests), had not been diligent. The Court also observed that Vimeo had never even argued ‘what detriment its hosting provider activity would have suffered if it had adopted the available technologies to carry out the necessary verification and control activities’.

Regarding the damages the Court used – as a benchmark – settlement agreements made between Mediaset and different providers and ordered Vimeo to pay Euros 563,00 for each minute of the videos unlawfully published.

According to the Court of Rome, the actions which – pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 EC – must be taken by providers ‘upon obtaining knowledge of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent’ may vary over time and must be assessed in the light of technological developments.

While waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision on a case concerning similar issues – expected in the coming months – the web giants will have to assess whether the procedures currently implemented to protect copyright are appropriate or if the principles expressed by recent case-law require them to update such policies taking into account their duty to remove infringing content using existing technology.

As the proposed “Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market” suffers a halt with the European Parliament declining to vote and rescheduling approval for September 2018, one of the main stumbling blocks is the likely ‘invasive’ nature Art. 13 requiring Internet Service Providers to pre-emptively scan, filter and block copyright-infringing contents which many in the industry consider too onerous.  A recent ruling by the Court of Milan, once again, had to tackle the tricky and difficult issue of the extent the ISP’s liability, determining the scope of the injunction against ISP. In particular, the Court of Milan ruled on the admissibility of a Preliminary Injunction order issued against network access providers that extends not only to the domain name whose content has been found to be illegal, but also to all the different domains that provide the same content to the public (the so-called “alias” sites). The IP Milan Chamber found that such a ruling is compatible with the general prohibition according to which ISPs do not have a surveillance obligation, challenged at the EU level, and at the same time complies with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness of PI measures.

Following the PI proceedings brought by Arnoldo Mondadori S.p.A., the Court of Milan, on 12 April 2018, ordered Fastweb S.p.A., Telecom Italia S.p.A., Tiscali Italia S.p.A., Vodafone Italia S.p.A. and Wind Tre S.p.A., in their role as network access providers,  to pay the costs for the implementation of the most appropriate technical measures that prevent users from accessing a portal that provided complete versions of Mondadori’s publications, either through the domain name “Italiashare.net” – the content of which was deemed unlawful – or through the “alias” sites, accessible through any domain name.

The case stemmed from an initial PI appeal brought by Mondadori against the same network access providers, as well as the hosting company, to obtain an order preventing access to the “Dasolo” portal by the recipients of the services, regardless of the top level domain adopted (“.it”, “.org”, “.net”). “Dasolo” illegally catalogued and provided the users with full versions of numerous magazines published by Mondadori (among many, “Chi”, “Cucina Moderna”, “Donna Moderna”, “Grazia”, “Panorama”, “Sale & Pepe”).

After having examined and distinguished the different liability profiles of the providers that perform data transport functions (the so-called “mere conduits”) and of those that store contents (the so-called “hosting” activity), the Judge for the first PI proceedings ordered the service providers to disable access “to all the sites with second-level domain name ‘dasolo’ regardless of the top level domain adopted” (“a tutti i siti con nome di dominio di secondo livello ‘dasolo’ indipendentemente dal top level domain adottato”, Milan Court, ord. 24 July 2017).

However, this measure did not prove to be sufficiently effective, since in a short time the “Dasolo” portal had become operational again by changing its second-level domain to “Italiashare”, while continuing to publish the same illegal content.

Therefore, Mondadori requested out-of-court that the network access providers adopt all the technical measures necessary to also disable this new domain. The providers refused on the grounds that a specific judicial or administrative measure would be necessary to extend the injunction to the different second-level domain “Italiashare”. Hence Mondadori’s new PI motion was aimed at obtaining a more far-reaching injunction, which could be extended to all different second-level domains that provide the same illegal content to the public (the so-called “alias” sites).

This is the framework for the recent order which is examined here. In fact, the Milan Court clarified that such an order is compatible with the fact that ISPs do not have a preventive surveillance obligation, since they are not subject to any general obligation to monitor the network, since their intervention is always subject to specific notification by the right holder.

The Directive on electronic commerce only prohibits the imposition on ISPs of a general duty of preventive surveillance, and conversely requires them to implement effective measures for both repression and prevention of offences, using the detailed reports of the right holders, who are therefore reserved a proactive role in the protection of their rights. The First Instance Court further observes that the prohibition of a general obligation to monitor is not in any event of exempting effect here, since the electronic commerce Directive provides that “this does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case” (DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC, Whereas No. 47).

Such an order was also considered to be both effective and proportionate. The principle of the proportionality of PI measures must always be balanced with the principle of the effectiveness of copyright protection, which requires the court to take all appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of unlawful acts since, if, for any infringement subsequently found, the intervention of the court was necessary “no injunction could ever be issued for the future, contradicting the very nature of this type of conviction, ontologically projected to prevent the continuation and repetition of the offences to come”.

It is in this perspective that the Court of Justice has in fact ruled that injunction orders “must be sufficiently effective to ensure genuine protection of the fundamental right at issue,” that is to say “they must have the effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject-matter or, at least, of making it difficult to achieve” (CJEU, 27 March 2014, in Case C-314/12, Telekabel).

The Court further observes that the admissibility of the so-called “Dynamic Injunction“, i.e. orders which also extend to sites not expressly indicated in the PI order and which therefore overcome the inconvenience of having to establish subsequent judgements to strike and pursue phenomenologically identical violations, has also been confirmed by the European Commission, when interpreting the Enforcement Directive.

The Court therefore concludes the order by requiring the Respondents, in their capacity as network access providers, take the most appropriate technical measures to prevent the recipients of their services from gaining access to the portals which provide the public with the same illegal content as that at issue in the proceedings and relating to the Magazines, either through the domain name “Italiashare.net” or through the “alias” sites, reachable through any domain name, within a maximum of ten working days of receipt of specific notification of violations reported by the applicant, with the right of the recipients of the request to reimbursement of technical costs strictly necessary and inherent to the request itself.

A positive injunction, supported by a penalty that requires ISPs to take all necessary measures to prevent access to all future alias sites that make the same illegal content available to the public and regardless of the first or second level domain actually adopted, is certainly a far-reaching order, but one that poses many implementation issues.

With particular reference to the implementation of the order, the Court of Milan, in the well-known Mediaset Premium case decided by the Court of Milan, had instead refused to extend the order to alias sites that did not yet exist, even if their content was identical, since this would have required a private party to check whether the content was lawful or not, whereas “the current legal system does not seem to allow a private party to be given the status of a body permanently delegated by the judge to fill in the preceptive content of a measure of its own” (Court of Milan, order  27 July 2016, Mediaset Premium).

The order under review seems to go beyond the conclusions of the previous Mediaset Premium in favour of a more effective protection for right holders, which is certainly desirable, following the most recent and extensive interpretation of Community case-law on the liability of intermediaries, while at the same time denoting the growing attention of national courts to the need for right holders to obtain effective measures to combat online piracy.

However, there remain the problems that the previous Mediaset case had reported with regard to the methods of execution of the PI order, since the positive order commented herein shifts the assessment of illegality to a private level, leaving it in fact to the agreement or unity of views on the illegality of the content between the holder of rights and the ISP, relegating the intervention of the judge at the time of non-compliance by the ISP to the request for disabling the alias.


Every transmission or retransmission of a work which uses a specific technical means must, as a rule, be individually authorised by the author of the work in question”.

This is one the main principles ensuing from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the its recent decision of 29 November 2017 (Case C-265/16).

Continue Reading CJEU on VCAST Recording Service: is a Different Means of Transmission an Essential Condition for the Existence of a New Communication to the Public?

music-score-notes.jpgBy adopting Legislative Decree no. 35 of 15 March 2017 (Decree 35/2017) Italy implemented EU Directive 2014/26 on collective management of copyright and related rights.

The Directive and Decree 35/2017 identify two kind of entities which may be entrusted with the management of copyright and related rights: (i) collective management organisations and (ii) independent management entities.

Collective management organisations are owned/controlled by their members and/or are organised on a not-for-profit basis, while independent management entities are neither owned nor controlled by rightholders and are organised on a for-profit basis.

Continue Reading An Update on the (Partial) Liberalization of Copyright Collective Management in Italy



After 15 years, the Italian Supreme Court has brought the long-standing matter to an end: according to the decision of the Court, Italy’s Gabibbo is not a copy of America’s Big Red, and there is no finding of copyright infringement.

This is the result of drawn out proceedings which commenced in 2002, when several American companies, including the Western Kentucky University, summoned a number of Italian entities before the Court of Ravenna to contest the use and commercial exploitation of the puppet “Gabibbo”.

The Claimants alleged that Gabibbo – the red and rather clumsy character created by Italian television producer Antonio Ricci and appearing on Italian Television in October 1990 – infringed the copyright in their puppet Big Red, a red, furry and athletic mascot of Western Kentucky University, known in the US as the WKU icon and representing the Spirit of Western.

Continue Reading Gabibbo wins against Big Red: The Italian character is not a copy of the American one!

articolo VCI.jpgIl 22 settembre, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea (CGUE) ha finalmente pronunciato la sua attesissima decisione nel caso Microsoft Mobile e aa. contro SIAE (C-110/15), che rappresenta un importante punto di svolta ed allo stesso tempo una significativa vittoria per l’industria.

Analizzando il sistema italiano di prelievo per copia privata, la Corte di Giustizia ha fatto luce su numerose questioni di rilevanza generale. Anzitutto, i giudici del Lussemburgo hanno affermato che la normativa italiana si pone in contrasto con il diritto dell’Unione e, in particolare, con il principio della parità di trattamento, nella misura in cui non prevede disposizioni di applicazione generale che esonerino dal pagamento del prelievo per copia privata e delega la SIAE a negoziare tali esenzioni con i soggetti su cui grava l’obbligo di pagare tale compenso.

Continue Reading Corte di Giustizia: la normativa italiana in materia di equo compenso per copia privata è illegittima

Biro e contratto.jpgRecently, the Court of Venice ruled on a case regarding plagiarism of the work of a lawyer. The Court stated that legal works are protected by copyright if they are the result of a personal, new, original and creative processing of the law and of the practice of a sector in which the lawyer has expertise, and as long as they are not simply a functional processing thereof.

Continue Reading Legal work is protected by copyright

old books 1.jpg

Qualcuno finalmente si prenderà cura delle cosiddette “opere orfane” anche in Italia. È quanto ha stabilito il recentissimo D.lgs. n. 163 del 10 novembre 2014 che, nel recepire la direttiva n. 2012/28/UE, ha introdotto all’art. 1 nuove disposizioni nella legge sul diritto d’autore (artt. 69bis-69-septies). L’input riformatore risale al 2006 quando una raccomandazione della Commissione europea (2006/585/CE) aveva prospettato un miglioramento delle condizioni per la digitalizzazione del materiale culturale con la creazione di meccanismi che facilitassero l’accesso alle opere orfane.

Continue Reading Autore non individuato o non rintracciabile? L’opera è orfana

youtube.jpgCon decisione del 5 maggio 2014, il Tribunale di Torino ha rigettato la domanda cautelare di Delta TV Programmes nei confronti Google e Youtube, finalizzata ad ottenere un’inibitoria urgente in relazione alla pubblicazione abusiva, su Youtube, di episodi di varie telenovelas di proprietà della ricorrente. Il Tribunale ha rigettato la domanda ribadendo il contenuto delle norme del d.lgs. 7/2003 secondo cui, in sostanza, il “fornitore di servizi della società dell’informazione” che svolga semplice attività di hosting, come nel caso del fornitore di servizi internet di videosharing, quale è Youtube, gode di una deroga di responsabilità in relazione alla eventuale violazione di diritti esclusivi commessa attraverso lo sharing non autorizzato di contenuti protetti, nel caso in cui, in seguito alla diffida ricevuta dal titolare dei diritti, i contenuti siano prontamente rimossi.  

Continue Reading Nessun obbligo di sorveglianza o ricerca per Youtube, secondo il Tribunale di Torino.

Copyright-_all_rights_reserved-art.lda.pngAlla tutela rafforzata del copyright offerta dal Regolamento dell’AGCOM, di cui si è detto qui, si aggiunge l’estensione della durata temporale della tutela dei diritti connessi al copyright dei produttori di fonogrammi, nonché degli artisti interpreti ed artisti esecutori, introdotta dal D. Lgs. 21 febbraio 2014 n. 22, in vigore dallo scorso 26 marzo (pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 58, 11 marzo 2014).

Continue Reading Produttori di fonogrammi, artisti interpreti ed esecutori: la tutela si estende