EU policy/Illegal Content Consultation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Icon by Lakas.svg Home   About icon (The Noun Project).svg About   Statement icon (The Noun Project).svg Statement   Monitor icon (The Noun Project).svg Monitoring   Documents icon - noun project 5020.svg Documentation   Take Action icon (The Noun Project).svg Handouts   Team icon - noun project 20586.svg Team   Tranparency icon (The Noun Project).png Transparency
Logo of the European Commission (el).svg
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU

'Notifiers' of Illegal Content Consultation

 

The European Commission has launched a survey addressed to 'notifiers' of illegal content. This is the Wikimedia working page to draft answers to be submitted by the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU.

Purpose of Survey[edit]

The general objective of this study is to gather information on how the current online liability regime is experienced by stakeholders, and on proactive measures on a voluntary basis employed by organisations to prevent and detect illegal content online. By responding, you will enable the Commission to get a clearer and more accurate view of the realities of the current situation, and ensure all stakeholder views are understood.

Important deadlines[edit]

The consultation will remain open in the period 31 October.

Previous EU positioning by Wikimedia[edit]

Who should edit this page?[edit]

Everyone!

Consultation[edit]

Introduction

Your details

1. Please provide contact details:

   Dimitar Dimitrov, Rue du Trône 51, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium                

2. Are you replying on behalf of an organisation?


   I am replying on my own behalf
X I am replying on behalf of an organisation


3. To what extent are the mechanisms put in place to notify of illegal content easy to find/accessible?

 X To a very large extent  
   To a large extent    
   To a moderate extent 
   To a small extent    
   To a very small extent       

4. Generally, to what extent is the information required in notice submissions easy to identify

 X To a very large extent  
   To a large extent    
   To a moderate extent 
   To a small extent    
   To a very small extent       

5. Do you check the notified content against the law or against the intermediary's Terms of Service prior to sending?

  I only notify content which I consider illegal in my country or at EU level      
  I notify content which I consider contrary to the intermediary's own content policy (terms of service, community standards, etc.)     
X Other, please specify: Please enter an 'other' value for this selection.      
           >A combination of both. It is however very hard to know which content is legal or illegal in which country.

6. Please briefly describe how your organisation identifies illegal content online?

Our community members mark content that they believe cannot be used due to copyright or other terms. These cases are then being discussed by community member and if there is a consensus, they are deleted. As we never know which law applies to online projects, we usually apply several national laws and only keep the content that respects even the strictest rules.

7. Could you estimate the cost to identify content that you believe to be illegal?

Countless hours of volunteer work than could otherwise be spent on gathering and curating free educational content for the world.

8. Do intermediaries acknowledge receipt of the notices that you send? If so, please specify examples:

Technically, Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. However, the community of volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia jointly decides about the content that is hosted. Our community members mark legally questionable content, then discuss it and then decide upon its deletion.

9. Are you a “trusted flagger”* for a specific intermediary?
  • A trusted flagger, or trust reporter, is a mechanism that gives specific benefits to an approved organisation to facilitate their sending notifications to an intermediary; e.g. they may be permitted to send notices in bulk, to directly take down content, to be exempted from further control of a specific notice, or to have access to a privileged channel of communication with the intermediary.
  Yes      
X  No   

10. Please briefly describe how your organisation identifies illegal content online?

Volunteer work by community members.

Notice and Action Procedure

11. Do you receive confirmation of takedown/disabling of content from online intermediaries?

    Yes    
X   No  
If no, do you track whether notified content has been taken down or disabled? 
   Yes     

X No


12. Do you ever receive feedback from intermediaries that the notifications you send are unsatisfactory or incomplete?

X  Yes     
   No   

If yes, please explain what issues they raised: Whether the notification is actually valid.

13. What is the average time taken by the intermediaries to remove content or disable access to it by type of illegal content?

                                <1 hour < 3 hours    < 6 hours < 12 hours      1 day   2 days  3 days  4 days  5 days  6 or more days  < 30 days    Don't know

Child Sexual Abuse Material Hate speech Extremist or terrorist content Copyright Don't know Counterfeit Other IP rights (patents, design) Don't know Trademark Don't know Phishing Data protection violation Product safety Violation of consumer protection rules Illegal web advertising Illegal goods Defamation Other

Please further explain why it is difficult to know when content was taken down: Obvious cases of copyright infringements are taken down quickly within hours or a day. In many cases it is not easy to make a clrea call, for instance when it is unclear which countries copyright exception applies or whether it is a de minimis case.. In these cases the discussion takes longer.

14. Once content has been taken down, disabled, do you monitor whether such content stays down?

   Yes     

X No

15. Do you have examples of intermediaries who ensure that the same content stays down beyond the initial notification? No

Notice and Action Procedure

16. In cases where no further action was taken by the intermediary upon notification, did you receive explanatory information from the intermediary as to the reasons why?

   Yes     
X   No  

17. Could you provide the names of intermediaries that have a counter-notice system in place? We do accept counter-notices on Wikimedia projects.

18. To your knowledge, how many of the notices you have submitted made the object of a counter notice in 2016? N/A

Notice and Action Costs

19. In cases where a counter-notice mechanism is in place, and a counter-notice is generated for your notification, does the intermediary inform you about it and provide you with enough information to understand the reasons for it?

X  Yes     
   No   
   It depends on the intermediary       

20. Have you put in place an automatic system that generates notices?

   Yes     
X  No   

21. Do you hire a rights enforcement organisation that uses an automated system to generate notices?

   Yes     
X   No  

22. Does your organisation provide information to a filtering system (hash-based or fingerprinting technology for example)?

   Yes     
X  No   

23. Could you estimate how many cases you have taken to court in European Member States over the past 5 years to obtain removal orders for illegal content (if this possible for your organisation)?

0

24. Did you send a prior notice to the host intermediary in all of these court cases?

   Yes     
   No   
   Varied depending on the intermediary 
   Other, please explain: Please enter an 'other' value for this selection.     

25. Do you see any other issue or challenge with regard to the process of sending notification/flagging illegal content/harmful content to intermediaries and the take-down process?

We have no clear rules in the EU for such processes.

26.Can we organise a follow-up call to further exchange about your answers? All information received will remain with the research team and treated as confidential.       
X  Yes     
   No