當(dāng)一家八卦網(wǎng)站貼出碧昂絲的疑似孕照時，它肯定沒有想到會引發(fā)這樣大的反響——法院做出的一項(xiàng)重要的版權(quán)裁決甚至可能導(dǎo)致該網(wǎng)站的業(yè)務(wù)模式被徹底封殺，而其他一些靠用戶上傳內(nèi)容而生存的網(wǎng)站也可能面臨重大危機(jī)。

上周五，加州聯(lián)邦上訴法庭下達(dá)了一項(xiàng)對美國知名網(wǎng)站LiveJournal非常不利的裁決。LiveJournal是美國境內(nèi)的一個綜合性SNS交友網(wǎng)站，旗下的博客論壇“Oh No They Didn’t”在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上有一定的號召力，用戶可以向該論壇上傳明星新聞并進(jìn)行討論。

這場官司的起因，是一家叫做Mavrix的狗仔隊(duì)公司起訴LiveJournal侵犯了他們拍攝的碧昂絲照片以及另外19張照片的版權(quán)。據(jù)加州聯(lián)邦上訴法庭稱，Marvix是一個“專門在熱帶地區(qū)偷拍明星照片”的組織。

LiveJournal立即祭起了《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》（Digital Millennium Copyright Act）的大旗來洗脫自己的責(zé)任——這也是一個早就被其他網(wǎng)站用濫了的招數(shù)。根據(jù)該法案，只要網(wǎng)站遵循了一定的步驟，就可以免除用戶通過其網(wǎng)站做出某些不當(dāng)行為的責(zé)任。2014年，一位聯(lián)邦法官認(rèn)為，LiveJournal的做法并未超出《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》的所謂“安全港原則”，因而駁回了這項(xiàng)訴訟。

Mavrix決定繼續(xù)上訴，而娛樂行業(yè)對《法案》袒護(hù)盜版行為的做法早已不滿，紛紛上書支持Mavrix公司的上訴。與此同時，一些主要依賴用戶貢獻(xiàn)內(nèi)容的知名網(wǎng)站（如Pinterest和Etsy等），則遞交陳訴狀支持LiveJournal，稱現(xiàn)行的《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》并無不妥之處。

在上周五的裁決中，加州聯(lián)邦上訴法庭裁決委員會的三名法官形成了一致意見，果斷推翻了下層法官的裁定，表示一審判決并未充分考慮LiveJournal對論壇版主的管理情況，因?yàn)檎搲嬷鲗τ趯⒂脩羯蟼鞯哪男┱掌@示在網(wǎng)站上，是擁有很大的自由裁量權(quán)的。

加州聯(lián)邦上訴法庭在裁決中寫道：“Mavrix提交的證據(jù)表明，LiveJournal給它的版主們賦予了明確的和不同等級的網(wǎng)帖審查權(quán)……雖然LiveJournal將這些版主稱為‘志愿者’，但版主們確實(shí)在LiveJournal的業(yè)務(wù)模式中扮演了至關(guān)重要的作用?！?/p>

該法庭還指出，LiveJournal的版主們發(fā)布的很多照片上有Mavrix公司的官方水印。

法庭最后指出，此案將被發(fā)回至下級法院重審，下一步要重點(diǎn)查明這些版主是否是LiveJournal的“代理人”。如果答案是肯定的，勢必將摧毀該網(wǎng)站的“安全港”原則。即便這些版主不是LiveJournal的“代理人”，法院也要查明他們是否了解或明知這些照片的版權(quán)屬于Mavrix。

最后，聯(lián)邦上訴法庭還指出，下級法院的法官還需進(jìn)一步查明LiveJournal是否利用其掌握的侵權(quán)照片獲得了利益。

該裁決并不是認(rèn)定LiveJournal敗訴的最終判決，它只是要求下級法院對原判決進(jìn)行重審。然而這份裁決無論是從結(jié)構(gòu)還是語氣上都強(qiáng)烈表明，聯(lián)邦上訴法院對此事已有結(jié)論，那就是LiveJournal的行為的確侵犯了版權(quán)。

對其它網(wǎng)站的意義

加州聯(lián)邦上訴法庭的此次裁決公布后，包括電子前線基金會（Electronic Frontier Foundation）在內(nèi)的一些數(shù)字化倡議團(tuán)體紛紛表示，上周的這項(xiàng)裁決嚴(yán)重侵害了“安全港”原則，甚至可能導(dǎo)致更多的網(wǎng)站遭到版權(quán)方面的訴訟。

另外，此次裁決可能為進(jìn)一步縮窄“安全港”原則的法律行動打開大門，并且可能給Facebook和YouTube等知名網(wǎng)站帶來一連串的問題。更何況一直以來，娛樂行業(yè)針對這兩家網(wǎng)站管控侵權(quán)行為不利的投訴從來就沒有斷過。

然而從另一方面看，該裁決的影響或許并不會波及“Oh No The Didn’t”博客以外的較大范圍。該網(wǎng)站之所以受到了聯(lián)邦上訴法庭的“特殊照顧”，也是由于它實(shí)在太不長心——比如它發(fā)布的一些圖片顯然印著Marvrix公司的水印。

紐約市一位長期從事知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的律師艾德·克拉利斯認(rèn)為，此次裁決并不等于將所有依賴《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》生存的網(wǎng)站一棍子打死，但它顯然向這些網(wǎng)站發(fā)送了一個信號——對于其他人發(fā)布的內(nèi)容，還是不要摻合得太深。

“不經(jīng)過真人版主的干預(yù)，圖片是不可能被發(fā)布到網(wǎng)站上的，這也不禁令人懷疑，被告是否實(shí)際上是侵權(quán)行為的同犯。這些因素是此案中的重點(diǎn)，并且也將繼續(xù)受到各大網(wǎng)站的密切關(guān)注。到目前為止，法院對于網(wǎng)站在保有豁免權(quán)的情況下篩選和編輯內(nèi)容的行為還是留了很大的余地的?！?/p>

而版權(quán)的所有者們很可能對此項(xiàng)裁決表示歡迎，因?yàn)樗麄円恢币詠矶贾铝τ诳s小“安全港”原則的范圍。

另外，此次裁決也表明，自從維亞康姆（Viacom）起訴YouTube侵犯版權(quán)一案宣告敗訴，導(dǎo)致“安全港”原則的力量進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)之后，法律界針對網(wǎng)站侵權(quán)問題的看法已經(jīng)有了一定的改變。

自維亞康姆與YouTube一案于2014年結(jié)案以來，美國娛樂界一直鍥而不舍地針對該原則發(fā)難，并已經(jīng)贏得了幾次重大勝利。其中就包括上周五LiveJournal一案的裁決。此外在2016年，一位聯(lián)邦法官也曾裁定互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商考克斯通訊公司（Cox Communications）的行為不適用“安全港”原則，并責(zé)令其為用戶的非法下載行為繳納了2500萬美元的罰款。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：樸成奎

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.