–

Consumers wonder what exactly has changed when they are confronted with a new set of online terms, in a cloud-based service, website terms or software license. We reviewed this issue in an earlier post, which looked at changes to online terms in the middle of the product lifecycle. Amendments are often introduced due to changes in the law or changes in product functionality.

Instagram amended its terms of use in early 2013. In Rodriguez v. Instagram , CGC-13-532875 (San Francisco Sup. Ct. Feb 28, 2014), a US court reviewed a complaint alleging that Instagram’s new terms consituted a breach of good faith and fair dealing. The court noted that: “The New Terms modified the original terms in three allegedly material respects:

1. in the Original Terms, Instagram disclaimed any ownership rights in content users post on Instagram, whereas in the New Terms Instagram disclaimed ownership of content users post on Instagram;
2. in the Original Terms, Instagram was afforded a non-exclusive limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate content users posted on Instagram, whereas under the New Terms Instagram has a transferable and sub-licensable license to use the content users post, with the two allegedly material aspects being (i) the addition of sublicensing authority; and (ii) removal of any limitations on the scope of the license; and
3. the New Terms add a liability waiver.”

The New Terms were structured so that users accepted the terms by continuing to use Instagram after the effective date. A user could decline acceptance by ceasing all use of Instagram. The plaintiff in this case did continue use of Instagram after the New Terms were introduced. This opened up the argument for Instagram that this user consented to be bound by the New Terms. The lack of a click-through was not fatal to Instagram’s case. As a result, this decision seems like a bright spot for cloud service providers and software licensors – after all, it seems to permit unilateral amendment clauses in online terms without forcing users into a mandatory click-through screen. The court also seems to accept that the new terms can apply retroactively to user-generated content that pre-dates the New Terms. However, a note of caution should be sounded for cloud computing providers and software vendors:

• unilateral amendments to online terms should always be handled carefully;
• consider in advance whether amendments are permitted under the current terms before imposing new terms;
• due to the facts of this particular plaintiff, the court did not address the question of what would be done with user content if the user had ceased use of the service – i.e. if the user had not impliedly consented by continued use;
• consider how to log or track user consent (either active consent or implied “continued-use” consent) by users.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

No comments

–

Most Canadian businesses will have heard of the incoming Canadian Anti-Spam Law (referred to as CASL, which joins the Canadian pantheon of legislative acronyms like PIPEDA and PIPA). The consent requirements for sending commercial electronic messages (CEMs) is covered elsewhere (See here, and see this upcoming event on March 18 and 20, 2014). Those requirements come into effect July 1, 2014.

The software-related regulations are getting less press. Why? Possibly because CASL is being implemented in phases, and the software-related rules are not expected to be in full force until January 15, 2015. And possibly because the software-related regs are complicated and at times confusing.

This element of CASL is designed to control surreptitious installation of software, particularly “invasive software”. Generally, express, clear consent is required. Installation of invasive software imposes additional requirements. Implied consent (or “deemed express consent”) may be relied upon in other cases:

• cookies, HTML code, Java scripts;
• upgrades for telecom network security;
• “reasonable” installs – where it is reasonable to expect that the user would consent.

Software vendors should take note of these incoming obligations, to assess and plan for any updates that will be required for CASL compliance. Get advice on how these regulations apply to your software products.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

Business people are sometimes seen to roll their eyes when they ask their lawyer a straighforward question, and the lawyer pauses and replies “Well… it depends…”

In our earlier post (here and here), we reviewed the Canadian decision in Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548, which stands for the proposition that a domain name is intangible personal property. The court pointed to an emerging consensus among other courts that domain names are a form of property. This decision was denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Lojas Renner S.A. v. Tucows.Com Co., 2012 CanLII 28261 (SCC) which seems to settle the matter.

In the United States, courts have also come to the same conclusion that a domain name is personal property, for example in (Bosh v. Zavala (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) and Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F. 3d 1035 (US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

A recent US decision out of Virginia (In re Alexandria Surveys Int’l, LLC, 13-CV-00891 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2013)) has come to a different conclusion in a bankruptcy matter. In this case, the court decided that “a domain name registrant acquires the contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time . . . a domain name is not personal property but rather ‘the product of a contract for services.’” [Emphasis added]

Many Canadian companies have intangible assets like domain names on both sides of the border, particularly in cases where branch offices or subsidiaries carry on business in both countries. While Canadian law appears to have some clarity on this topic, the Alexandria Surveys decision in the US does raise questions – questions that are compounded in light of the fact that intangible assets like domain names are designed to be used without regard to any particular country or jurisdiction.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

In a recent decision released by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner (PIPEDA Report of Findings #2014-001), the commissioner investigated a complaint that Google pitched ads to an individual based on medical information that he disclosed while surfing various health-related websites. The commissioner’s office took the position that “meaningful consent” is required for the delivery of this kind of targeted advertising. Implied consent might be acceptable in certain circumstances, where the information is limited to “non-sensitive“ information (which would avoid medical, financial or health information).

In this case, the individual who initiated the complaint was using Google to search for information related to a medical device used to treat a specific medical condition. Google used this sensitive personal health information (as the commissioner described it, the “online activities and viewing history of health related websites”) to target ads to that individual. When Google relied on implied consent for the use of this sensitive personal health information, it contravened Principles 4.3 and 4.3.6 of the Act. Express consent is required for use of this kind of sensitive personal information.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

In a recent default judgment granted to Twentieth Century Fox, a Canadian Federal Court recently issued an injunction and a damage award in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Hernandez et al (T-1618-13) for copyright infringement based on copying and rebroadcasting The Simpsons and Family Guy programs through the defendant’s websites “Watch The Simpsons Online” and “Watch Family Guy Online”.

As the court noted: “Statutory damages, elected by Twentieth Century Fox in this case, would be insufficient to achieve the goal of punishment and deterrence of the offense of copyright infringement in this case. Hernandez’s repeated, unauthorized, blatant, high-handed and intentional misconduct, and his callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s copyright rights, is deserving of the penalty of punitive damages.”

The court went on to issue a damage award of $10 million in statutory damages under 38.1 of the Copyright Act, as wel as $500,000 in punitive damages, costs of $78,000, plus interest

Hat tip to Alan Macek at Dimock Stratton for a link to the decision.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

In this blog, we typically review forum-selection cases in the context of internet-related contracts and software licenses. A recent decision out of the US Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of forum-selection clauses in a construction contract. While this is not an intellectual property case, it is instructive for Canadian companies entering into any contract in the US.

To review, a “forum-selection clause” is a provision in a contract which picks a particular country or province or state for the resolution of disputes – put another way, it’s the place where litigation would be started in the event of a dispute.

In Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S. District Court For The Western District of Texas, [Link to Decision] the US Supreme Court indicated that where the parties have elected to include a forum-selection clause in their contract, that clause “represents [their] agreement as to the most proper forum,” and should be “given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.”.

The Court went on to say that:

• First, if one party defies the forum-selection clause by commencing a lawsuit in another jurisdiction, that party has the burden of convincing the court that the case shouldn’t be transferred to the forum named in the agreement.
• Second, “the court should not consider the parties’ private interests aside from those embodied in the forum-selection clause; it may consider only public interests.” Public-interest factors will not typically override the forum-selection clauseexcept in very unusual cases.
• Lastly, if a party is bound by a forum-selection clause and they choose to flout those contractual obligations by filing a lawsuit in a different forum, then they don’t get the benefit of applying the choice-of-law rules in the jurisdiction in which they filed. In other words, they can’t improve their chances of success by filing in a state with favourable choice-of-law rules. They will be bound by the choice-of-law rules of the forum named in the forum-selection clause.

The US Supreme Court has confirmed that forum-selection clauses should be upheld in the US.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

It is rare for a case to combine energy drinks, copyright law, DJs, rap and snowboarding in Canada. The court’s decision in Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co. is such a case.

In this recent decision of the United States District Court (S.D. New York), Monster Energy defended a copyright infringement claim brought by the rap-group Beastie Boys. The Beastie Boys allegations centred around Monster’s use of a remix track, known as Megamix, originally created by the DJ known as Z-Trip. The remix of well-known Beastie Boys hits was created by Z-Trip with the permission of the band – in fact they had invited the DJ to mix the track in 2011 in order to promote a Beastie Boys album.

At a Canadian snowboarding event in 2012, an executive from Monster approached the DJ to get permission to use the remix for Monster’s promotional video of the event. It was these discussions that became the focus of the Court’s analysis of Monster’s defence that it had obtained a license from the DJ for the use of the remix. After producing the video with the remix included, Monster sent a copy to the DJ who responded “Dope!”, as DJs will. Monster took this exclamation as an affirmation of the terms of a license granting permission to use the song for Monster’s promotional purposes. The DJ testified that this term merely expressed approval for how cool he looked in the video. The Court concluded that no reasonable person would consider the term “Dope!” to constitute “clear, unambiguous and unequivocal” acceptance of license terms for the use of the remix. As a result, there was no valid consent or license granted.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

We recently reported on a case out of New York State, which dealt with the question of sales tax liability in the case of online sales. That decision (in Overstock.com v. New York Taxation Dept. and the companion case of Amazon.com v. New York Taxation Dept.) decided that internet retailers are required to collect sales taxes on purchases by New York residents even if the retailers have no physical presence in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to let this decision stand (without offering any reasons). Congress is currently considering a legislative response to this issue through the proposed Marketplace Fairness Act. Large retailers such as Amazon have the means to negotiate a solution with tax authorities on a state by state basis, but smaller companies simply do not have that leverage.

Canadian online retailers selling into the U.S. will want to seek advice on sales tax issues to ensure their tax collection and remittance policies are compliant in the United States.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

In the case of Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, released last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada has declared the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) invalid in its entirety.

This case pits constitutional rights against privacy rights. The court reviewed a claim of privacy rights infringement arising from a long strike during which both the Union and the employer recorded and photographed individuals crossing the picketline. Some of those who were photographed crossing the picketline filed privacy complaints when the Union posted those pictures online.

As a consent-based privacy law, PIPA establishes a general requirement to obtain consent for any collection, use or disclosure of personal information. According to the court: “The central issue is whether PIPA achieves a constitutionally acceptable balance between the interests of individuals in controlling the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information and a union’s freedom of expression. PIPA does not include any mechanisms by which a union’s constitutional right to freedom of expression may be balanced with the interests protected by the legislation.” Thus, in the end, the entire Act has been declared constitutionally invalid, and in a unique way of avoiding a gap in the law, the court’s declaration has been suspended for 1 year, to allow the Alberta legislature to fix the law.

Stay tuned.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

The app economy is, by most estimates, equivalent in size to the GDP of a small country: $15 billion in 2012, projected to mushroom to $74 billion by 2016. All that economic activity inevitably breeds litigation. In what appears to be a case of first impression in the US, a federal court looked at the issue of whether the app store is liable for the apps it distributes, or the app developer.

The case of Evans v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2013 WL 4426359 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013), the court looked at the liability of Hewlett-Packard for a third-party app which allegedly infringed trade-mark rights.

This case hinges on an interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. §230), 1996 legislation which provides immunity for providers of an “interactive computer service”, such as ISPs and website operators. The court decided that HP, as the operator of the app store, does qualify for immunity under this legislation, putting the app store into the same category as ISPs.

Remember, the Communications Decency Act  is US legislation, not Canadian. However, Canadian app developers should take note of this decision, as most Canadian developers seek to market and sell their apps in the US.

Other app case are pending, such as this claim (Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., 12-cv-01529-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2013)) which is proceeding against Apple, for violation of privacy rights. Stay tuned.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

The club of Canadian provinces with private-sector privacy legislation welcomes a new member this year: Manitoba has passed the The Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Prevention Act (PIPITPA), joining B.C., Alberta and Quebec. In other provinces, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act governs private sector privacy. Of course, most provinces have enacted some form of public sector privacy law, and many also have health-information laws. The Manitoba private-sector law follows the consent-based privacy regime of other Canadian provinces.

This law has yet to be proclaimed into law. Stay tuned.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

When you upload your pictures to a website, you might click through some terms of use…Did you just transfer ownership of the copyright in your pictures?

In a recent US case (Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., No. 12-2102, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) the court dealt with a copyright infringement claim over photos uploaded to a real estate website. Users were required to click-through the website terms of use (TOU) prior to uploading, and those terms clearly indicated that copyright in the images was transferred to the website owner.

In the course of the infringement lawsuit, this was challenged, so the court had to squarely address the question of whether copyright can be validly transferred via online terms. “The issue we must yet resolve,” said the Court, “is whether a subscriber, who ‘clicks yes’ in response to MRIS’s electronic TOU prior to uploading copyrighted photographs, has signed a written transfer of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership in those photographs consistent with” the Copyrght Act.

In Canada, the equivalent section of the Act says “The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially …but no assignment or grant is valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right…”.

The Court in the Metropolitan Regional case decided that yes, an electronic agreement in this case was effective to transfer copyright for the purposes of the Copyright Act.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

As a follow-up to our earlier post about Revoking an “Implied” Software License, this interesting US case (Davis v. Tampa Bay Arena Ltd.) deals with the use of photographs on Facebook postings. A freelance photographer, Davis, worked for the Tampa Bay Arena, taking photos for various events. The photographer and arena had a verbal agreement since 1996, and then a written agreement since 2000. The written agreement stated that the arena had “rights to reproduce images for newsletter, advertising, display prints, broadcast, and the [Forum] web site.” The agreement was also clear that Davis retained copyright in the images.

That was the language dating from 2000. Fast forward 10 years, and the arena started posting Davis’s photos to its Facebook page, something not contemplated in the scope of the original agreement. However, for months Davis permitted the images to be posted, and even set up a upload site to allow the arena’s marketing department to easily resize images for the Facebook page. By this course of conduct and the email record, the court found that Davis granted an implied nonexclusive license to the arena to make use of the images in this way. Davis countered by saying that if an implied license was granted, it was only granted with certain strings attached – conditions regarding additional payment that were never met. Because these conditions were not met, the use of the photographs was unauthorized, giving rise to a copyright infringement claim.

The court disagreed. On the copyright claim, the court decided that “even assuming that Davis attached conditions to the Forum’s use of his images on Facebook, the record is clear that these conditions were covenants, not conditions precedent to the granting of the implied license. Accordingly, any breach on the Forum’s part of these covenants provides Davis with a breach of contract claim against the Forum, not a copyright infringement claim.” (Emphasis added.)

Lessons?

• A chain of emails can easily establish a contract, such as the implied copyright license in this case;
• For any license – particularly copyright, media or trade-mark licenses – check the original terms of the license. Social media can cause problems when its use is unauthorized by the scope of the original license, even though it seems like a natural extension of what is authorized within the scope of the original license.

Related Reading: Click & Copy: Breach of Online License Agreements & Copyright Infringement

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

The criminal defence lawyers have their TV shows and movies. What about those humble lawyers who draft online agreements and terms of use all day long? It’s not every day that this kind of legal fine print gets time on the silver screen. Check out this documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply.

Playing next weekend at the Vancouver International Film Festival and Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

- 

License agreements often contain indemnities. An indemnity is a contractual obligation to step in and reimburse some financial obligation such as a liability, loss, or damage. In essence, the party giving the indemnity will make the injured party “whole” by recompensing losses and expenses.

The court in Coastal Contacts Inc. v. Elastic Path Software Inc., 2013 BCSC 133 reviewed the meaning and scope of an indemnity for intellectual property infringement, which is a common clause in many intellectual property (IP) license agreements. This is what’s known as an IP indemnity clause. What obligations does a software vendor take on, when they give an IP indemnity? For the full article, click here: Software Licenses and Indemnities: What Obligations Are You Taking On?

Calgary – 11:00

–

When a user dies, who owns the contents of that user’s account?

In Ajemian v. Yahoo Inc.  (May 7, 2013), a Massachusetts court considered this question. Two brothers, who administered their brother John’s estate, brought a lawsuit against Yahoo for access to email messages of their deceased brother, and a declaration that the email account was property of John’s estate. The court considered the Yahoo Terms of Service, which included this clause: “You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted.”

The court looked at the central question of whether these terms – in particular, this “No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability” clause described above – was reasonably communicated to the user. The terms were amended before the time of death but the evidence was unclear on whether the deceased user had assented to this particular amendment. Because of the weak evidence on this point, the court decided that Yahoo could not rely on the forum selection clause which would have deflected the case to California.

The court took the view that the deceased user was a Massachusetts resident and courts in that state had a strong interest in the outcome of the case as it related to the assets of a deceased resident, as opposed to the nature of Yahoo’s services. The ultimate decision was remanded to the lower court, but we can take away a few important lessons:

1. The method of implementing Terms of Use and (just as important) amendments to those terms should be carefully reviewed by any Canadian company conducting business online. This includes everything from an email service like Yahoo, to cloud-computing service providers, online retailers, ebook sellers and software vendors.
2. Corporate accounts may not impacted by the death of a user, but anyone making consumer sales should review their online terms to address survivorship issues. And there are many cases where even a “corporate” user is signing up as an individual, without any clarity on what happens to that account as an “asset” of the business after death.

Get advice from our licensing and internet law experts in this complex area.

Related Reading: Is There Life After Death for Your Digital Assets?

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

“The world has changed dramatically in the last two decades… An entity may now have a profound impact upon a foreign jurisdiction solely through its virtual projection via the Internet.”

This statement from the New York Court of Appeals in the recent decision in Overstock v. New York Taxation and Finance (PDF) paved the way for an interesting conclusion on the taxing power of New York State – and by extension, the sales tax that may be applied to many online sales, including sales by Canadian online business into the US market.

Traditionally, a state’s taxing authority was based on “economic activities” by the seller, for example, through its employees or sales agents in that state. The question faced by the court in this case was whether click-through links on a “local website” (that is, a website owned by a local state owner) would qualify to establish “economic activities” in that state. For example, a link to Amazon from a local New York State website has the effect of driving sales to Amazon. The court decided that by compensating the local New York State website owner who has signed-on to an affiliate agreement, Amazon is deemed to have established an “in-state sales force”.  The site which hosts the link is paid a commission, flat fee or price-per-click, and this was considered enough to create a “substantial nexus” to the state. Passive advertisements, by contrast, would not by themselves create a substantial nexus.

It is not clear whether Overstock.com and Amazon will appeal the decision.

In other news, the U.S. Senate voted 74-20 to put The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 to a final vote, an Act which would allow states to collect online sales taxes. The OECD is also preparing guidelines on how to handle international value-added taxes, to deal with the current “uncertainty and risks of double taxation and unintended non-taxation”. The 2013 draft of the OECD Guidelines derives from the “neutrality” principle (the notion that value-added tax is a tax on final consumption that should be neutral for business), and the so-called “destination” principle (that tax should be paid in the jurisdiction of consumption).

In the meantime, Canadian online retailers selling into the US marketplace should consider reviewing their affiliate click-through agreements and assess sales-tax collection policies with tax advisors.

Related Reading: New York’s Highest Court Affirms Constitutionality of Click-Through Nexus

Calgary- 07:00 MDT

–

When a cloud privacy breach occurs in Canada, what happens? In some cases, businesses are subject to mandatory breach notification requirements. This means that a privacy breach – whether as a result of a hacker, a lost USB or some other human error – must by law be reported to the commissioner and to affected individuals. Ontario has implemented mandatory breach notification under its Personal Health Information Protection Act. In Alberta, organizations subject to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) are required to report a breach to the commissioner “without unreasonable delay” where a “reasonable person would consider that there exists a real risk of significant harm to an individual as a result of the loss or unauthorized access or disclosure”.

The “real risk of significant harm” requires some analysis in the event of a breach and the Alberta commissioner’s Mandatory Breach Reporting Tool (PDF) has been released recently, to assist organizations determine if they are required to report a breach under section 34.1 of PIPA. This area of law may be changing further: a private members bill  was recently introduced in Parliament to implement mandatory data breach reporting in the federal personal information protection law.

Here’s a recent case that illustrates the pitfalls of a cloud privacy breach in Canada:

• In the recently released decision relating to WhatsApp (Report of Findings: Investigation into the personal information handling practices of WhatsApp Inc.), the Canadian and Dutch privacy authorities investigated WhatsApp Inc. a US company operating “WhatsApp Messenger”, a cloud-based cross-platform mobile messaging app allowing the exchange of messages for iOS, BlackBerry, and Android platforms.
• The Commissioner launched an exhaustive review of the privacy aspects of the service after complaints regarding WhatsApp’s information-handling procedures, including the collection of more information than was necessary, the potential for privacy breach, the lack of encryption.
• While the story generated damaging headlines, WhatsApp did work with the Commissioner to resolve many of the privacy concerns.
• This investigation also shows the extent to which international privacy watchdogs will work together to launch an investigation that concerns personal information that crosses international borders.

The privacy lessons are clear: get advice on privacy implications of the cloud-based service, and don’t underestimate the importance of well-drafted privacy policies and user terms. Cloud service providers should also take time to understand the breach notification protocols that would apply in the event of a privacy breach.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

–

ICANN’s new gTLD process has taken another step forward. The period for filing formal objections against new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) has now been closed, and the Trademark Clearinghouse has been opened. The Clearinghouse is a global database of trade-marks to permit trade-mark owners to verify trade-mark information and use it to support trade-mark claims as the new gTLDs are rolled out. ICANN has announced that verification services are available now.

Watch for more updates in this area and if you are a Canadian trade-mark owner, check back as we will post details about how to submit your trade-mark to the Clearinghouse.

Related Reading: Another Update on the New gTLDs

Calgary – 10:00 MDT

–

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has released guidance on “Computer-Implemented Inventions” as planned, in the wake of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Amazon.  While “software” is technically not patentable, a “computer-implemented invention” is.  Such an invention could fall into one of several categories: a method (art, process or method of manufacture), machine (generally, a device that relies on a computer for its operation), or product (an article of manufacture). As before, computer programs, data structures and computer-generated signals alone are not patent-eligible.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT