WIPO ALERT - Operating Procedures of Authorized Contributors

In the interests of transparency, WIPO ALERT Authorized Contributors provide details of their operating procedures in compiling their lists of websites which deliberately infringe copyright.

Italy

Authorized contributor

Italian Communication Regulatory Authority (AGCOM)

Description

AGCOM is a public body accountable to Parliament which has established its powers, defined its statutes and elected its members.

Contact

Via Isonzo, 21/b - 00198 Rome, Italy
Tel:+ 39 06.69644 296
E-mail:  dda@agcom.it

Criteria

a)    The amount of digital works provided by the web site. AGCOM considers the profile of the violation in order to identify the massive character.

b)    The release window of the digital works.

c)    The economic value of the copyright violated and the extent of the damage for right holders.

d)    Encouraging, even indirectly, the use of digital works disseminated in violation of copyright law.

e)    Misleading claims by the site to be a legal site.

f)     The provision of technical information in order to enable access to digital works without the authority of the right holder.

g)    The revenues obtained by the site.

h)    Similar cases already decided by AGCOM after previous complaints.

Procedure

An aggrieved person who considers that a digital work is made available on an internet page in violation of copyright is entitled to file a request of removal with AGCOM.

AGCOM shall communicate the start of the proceeding to the service providers identified, as well as, if traceable, to the uploader and the internet page manager and website manager.

If the service providers, or the uploader, or the internet page manager or the website manager takes down the works, they shall give concurrent notice to AGCOM which shall dismiss the case.

If the service providers, or the uploader, or the internet page manager or the website manager wish to contest the alleged infringement, they shall transmit to AGCOM, within five days of receipt of AGCOM’s communication to them, any element useful for the verification of the complaint.

If the infringement is confirmed, AGCOM may order access providers established in Italy to disable the access to the website.

Like all AGCOM decisions, the orders regarding copyright can be opposed by presenting complaints to the Administrative Court (TAR -Regional Administrative Court).

Status

Public

Japan

Authorized contributor

Content Overseas Distribution Association(CODA)
No. 29 Kowa Building Annex 2F 2-11-24 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
TEL:+81-(3)3524-8880 FAX:+81-(3)3524-8882
E-mail: webmaster@coda-cj.jp
Website: http://www.coda-cj.jp/index.html

Description

CODA was founded in 2002 at the instance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) as an organization through which content holders and copyright-related organizations could cooperate to reduce piracy around the world, and to actively promote the international distribution of Japanese content, such as music, films, animation, TV programs and video games. In 2013, the Association merged its secretariat office with that of the Anti-Counterfeiting Association (ACA) in order to strengthen its capability to protect copyright and offer comprehensive measures against copyright infringement in Japan as well as overseas.

Contact

No. 29 Kowa Building Annex 2F 2-11-24 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
TEL:+81-(3)3524-8880 FAX:+81-(3)3524-8882
E-mail: webmaster@coda-cj.jp

Criteria

The Infringing Website List (IWL) was created for the purpose of preventing placement of advertisements on infringing website and smartphone apps and reducing advertising revenue to the operators of such illicit services. The IWL comprises websites and smartphone apps which contain or provide links to multiple infringing copies of copyright-protected works.

Sites are listed on the basis of an assessment of the scale and seriousness of the infringements and the willingness of the site operators to remove infringing content on request. Sites which are mirrors of existing listed sites are added to the list when discovered.

Procedure

The Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA) updates its Infringing Website List (IWL) approximately once every two months with data provided by its member companies and associations.

Status

Non-public – for use by advertising sector

Republic of Korea

Authorized contributor

Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCOPA)
4/9/10 F, World Cup Buk-ro, (1602, Sangam-dong) Mapo-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 03925
TEL:+82-(2)3153-2451 FAX:+82-(2)3153-2419
E-mail: kip_nara@kcopa.or.kr

Description of Authorized Contributor

KCOPA is a government-affiliated institution under the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST). KCOPA pursues a unique identity as public institution in charge of copyright protection matters. Its mission is to take charge of copyright protection matters and to establish a strong yet flexible protection infrastructure for Korea's copyrighted materials at home abroad. To fulfill the mission, KCOPA is working closely with relevant agencies in both domestic and international arena, in particular the Korea Communication Standards Commission (KCSC) in order to conduct systematic and effective copyright protection measures.

Contact

Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCOPA)
4/9/10 F, World Cup Buk-ro, (1602, Sangam-dong) Mapo-gu, Seoul, Repiblic of Korea, 03925
TEL:+82-(2)3153-2451 FAX:+82-(2)3153-2419
E-mail: kip_nara@kcopa.or.kr
Website: http://www.kcopa.or.kr

Criteria

The Infringing Website List (IWL) was created by KCOPA for the purpose of preventing placement of advertisements on infringing websites and reducing advertising revenue to the operators of such illicit services. The IWL comprises websites which contain or provide links to multiple infringing copies of copyright-protected works.  Sites which have been blocked at the direction of the KOCSC on the grounds of large-scale copyright infringement are listed by KCOPA.  KCSC selects a site for blocking according to its own judgment criteria, based on a quantitative assessment, if the purpose of the website is to distribute copyright infringing content.

Procedure

When a serious violation of copyright is identified on a website, the Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee of KCOPA may decide that the website should be added to the IWL.

KCOPA identifies copyright-infringing websites through its monitoring activity.  In deciding whether to include a site on the IWL it takes into account the decisions of the KCSC as to the blocking of websites on grounds of copyright infringement.

The KCSC will evaluate the alleged copyright infringing status of a website on the basis of information provided by KCOPA, relevant right holders and the website operator, depending on the type of contents. If it is feasible, KCSC will seek the comments of the website operator.

KCSC selects a site for blocking if its contents comprise more than 70% of copyright infringing content and the purpose of the website is to distribute such copyright infringing content. 

In accordance with Article 25(2)(2) of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission, KCSC provides an opportunity for the site operator to state his or her opinion on the proposal to block access to the website, unless:

  1. it is necessary to make an urgent request for correction for public safety and security or welfare;
  2. it is clearly impracticable or unnecessary to hear the opinion of the relevant person and his/her contact details are unknown;
  3. Where it is clearly impracticable or unnecessary to hear the opinion of the relevant person, and a statement of opinion based on a request for correction is deemed unnecessary because the fact that is a prerequisite for the request for correction is objectively proved in accordance with a final and conclusive judgement, etc. made by a court;
  4. Where the relevant person clearly expresses his/her intention of relinquishing an opportunity to state his/her opinion.

Pursuant to Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission (Presidential Decree No. 28888, May 15, 2018), the site operator is entitled to submit an objection to the blocking order within 15 days of being notified of the order.  If an objection is submitted, the KCSC must rule upon it within 15 days of filing.

KCOPA’s monitoring system identifies sites which are mirrors of sites blocked by KCSC, adds them to the IWL and informs KCSC which may then block access to them if so advised.

 Status

Non-public – for use by advertising sector only.

Russian Federation

Authorized contributor

Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), Moscow, Russian Federation

Description

Roskomnadzor is a federal executive authority, responsible for the control and supervision of telecommunications, information technology, and mass communications in the Russian Federation.

Contact

Address: 7, bldg 2, Kitaigorodskiy proezd,
Moscow, 109992, Russia
Tel:+7 495 983 3393
E-mail: rsoc_in@rkn.gov.ru
Website: https://nap.rkn.gov.ru/

Criteria

A website will be included in the Authorized Contributor’s list of sites of concern where:

The site has repeatedly and unlawfully published information protected by copyright and/or neighboring rights or information enabling access to such information by means of IT networks, including the Internet; and

The Moscow City Court has rendered a ruling for permanent restriction of access to that site, in accordance with Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006, on Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information (as amended).

For permanent blocking to be applicable, a right holder must have prevailed twice in infringement proceedings against the infringing website owner.

Procedure

Right holders may protect their rights online by applying to the Moscow City Court for an interim order requiring the removal of content infringing copyright or related rights, pursuant to Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006, as amended. The Court considers the right holder’s application and, if satisfied that the grounds are established, orders Roskomnadzor and other relevant persons to terminate the provision of technical facilities allowing the making available of the copyright work on the specific website.

Roskomnadzor then sends an electronic notification of the finding of infringement to the hosting provider of the website in Russian and English, indicating the name of the copyright work, its author, the name of the copyright holder, and the domain name and network address of the site concerned.

Within one business day, the hosting provider must notify the site owner of the need to remove the infringing content. The site owner must remove or prevent access to the infringing content within one further business day. If the site owner fails to comply with the notice, the hosting provider must prevent access to the infringing content within three business days of the notification sent to him by Roskomnadzor.

The site owner, the hosting provider or an internet access provider may appeal against the order within three months or such period as the Moscow City Court may direct.

Where the right holder has brought one or more successful applications for removal of infringing content against the site owner, the site is eligible for permanent blocking in the Russian Federation. If an application is made to the Moscow City Court for the prevention of access to a work protected by copyright or related rights after the entry into force of a prior decision made by the same court in favor of the same right holder in another case on the protection of copyright or related rights and the Court grants an order on the application requiring Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the site, the site will be permanently blocked.

Within 24 hours of receiving the court decision, Roskomnadzor sends an instruction to Russian internet access providers to block the website in question on a permanent basis.

As sites are permanently blocked under this procedure, Roskomnadzor adds their domains to its list of sites on the WIPO ALERT platform.

Status

Public

Roskomnadzor index of blocked sites
List of decisions of the Moscow City Court

Spain

Authorized contributor

Directorate General for Cultural Industries, Intellectual Property and Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain (Dirección General de Industrias Culturales, Propiedad Intelectual y Cooperación del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte del Reino de España).

Description

The Authorized Contributor is a department of the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain responsible, among other things, for all matters relating to copyright and related rights. It participates in WIPO ALERT through the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission, a national collegiate body under its supervision.

Contact

Address: Plaza del Rey, 1, 28004, Madrid, España
Tel:+34 917017348
Website: https://sede.mcu.gob.es/AppLES/les/ini/index.jsp 
Website: https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/en/cultura/propiedadintelectual/lucha-contra-la-pirateria.html

Criteria

The Authorized Contributor is responsible under Royal Decree No. 1889/2011, of December 30, 2011, on the Operation of the Intellectual Property Commission (“Royal Decree”) for safeguarding intellectual property rights pursuant to Article 195 (ex 158ter) of Consolidated Text of the Law on Intellectual Property, Regularizing, Clarifying and Harmonizing the Applicable Statutory Provisions (approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended up to Royal Decree-Law No. 26/2020 of July 7, 2020) (“TRLPI”).

The responsibilities of the Authorized Contributor include the administration of a procedure under judicial control to require Internet access providers in Spain to suspend access to websites which fail to remove copyright-infringing content after requests to do so.  The procedure is undertaken by the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission.  URLs are included in the Authorized Contributor’s list if the online location in question has been the subject of a blocking direction in accordance with Article 195 (ex 158ter) of TRLPI. 

Websites are eligible for blocking if:

  • They make available copyright-infringing content; and
  • Have failed to comply with a request to remove the content; and
  • The infringing activity is carried out for purposes of gain or causes or may cause damage to the right holders which they are not obligated to tolerate.

Procedure

The right holder or its authorized representative must make an application to the Second Section using a prescribed form set out in Annex IV of the Royal Decree. The Applicant must:

  • Identify the work alleged to be infringed;
  • Prove ownership of the rights in it, specifying all joint owners of the rights; 
  • Show that the work is being exploited, commercially or not, by a specified information society service (the Respondent), identifying, describing and locating respondent;
  • Declare that authorization has not been granted for the exploitation of the work by the Respondent;
  • Demonstrate that directly or indirectly the Respondent’s activities are carried out for purposes of gain or cause or may cause damage to the right holders which they are not obligated to tolerate;
  • Provide all available data that may help to identify the person in charge of the Respondent and that allow communication with that person, and  also any such data in relation to any service provider providing services to the Respondent;
  • Where appropriate, provide all available data as to the liability of the Respondent in accordance with Article 17 of Law 34/2002, of July 11, on services of the Information Society and electronic commerce (responsibility of service providers that provide links to content or search tools).

The Applicant must also provide reasonable proof of a previous unsuccessful attempt to request the Respondent to remove the content offered without authorization within three days.  This requirement does not apply where the Respondent fails to provide a valid email address for communication with it (Article 195(3), TRLPI).

Where the person in charge of the Respondent is not sufficiently identified, the Second Section may seek a judicial order requiring a relevant intermediary service provider to supply identifying information, so as to enable it to communicate with the Respondent (Article 18, Royal Decree).

After the identification of the person in charge of the Respondent, the Second Section will then send a notice to the Respondent and any intermediary service provider specifying the reasons for the request and requesting the Respondent within 48 hours voluntarily to remove the allegedly illegal content from its service.  If the content is removed by the Respondent, no further action is taken.  The file may, however, be reopened in case the Respondent resumes infringing activity in relation to the same or other works of the Applicant.  After the expiry of the period of 48 hours the Respondent has not ceased the activity complained of, the Second Section will within two days carry out a test or tests to confirm whether an infringement of the Applicant’s rights is continuing and will report its findings and its proposed order to the interested parties, so that they can request a hearing if they so wish within a maximum period of five days (Article 21, Royal Decree).

When the period for requesting a hearing has expired, the Second Section will issue a reasoned direction within three days and will declare the infringement of the Applicant’s rights proved or unproven.  If proven, the direction will require the person in charge of the Respondent to terminate the infringement within 24 hours. Any intermediary service provider will also be informed of the direction.

If the Respondent fails to comply with the direction, the Second Section may apply for an order from the Central Contentious-Administrative Court for an order directing any intermediary service provider to suspend access to the Respondent’s services within 72 hours from notification of the order to it (Article 22, Royal Decree). 

The order will be notified to the Applicant, the person in charge of the Respondent’s service, to any relevant intermediary service provider and all other interested parties.  The order shall cease to apply in case the Second Section finds that infringement has been terminated or in any event after one year (Article 24, Royal Decree).

The Respondent is entitled throughout the procedure to the general guarantees of due process set out in Articles 35 and 135 of Law 30/1992, of November 26, on the legal regime of public administrations and the common administrative procedure.

After the reform of the Consolidated Text of the Law on Intellectual Property carried out by Law 2/2019, 1st March 2019, and, according to Article 195.4, last paragraph, of the above mentioned Consolidated Text, when the Respondent does not identify itself sufficiently, the Second Section may directly seek a judicial preventive order for the Internet access providers in Spain to suspend access to those websites for a year, as an extraordinary remedy of urgent injunction. The judicial order is communicated to all parties and collaborators

Status

Public – published in the quarterly report of the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission