FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: Does a cease and desist letter recipient have a duty to remove materials alleged to infringe copyright? Answer: The cease and desist letter gives its recipient ("you") notice that someone is claiming something you've done or something on your site infringes a copyright. If the materials that are the subject of the notice are in fact infringing, then you do have a duty to remove them, although there may be statutory provisions (DMCA Safe Harbor) that protect you from a lawsuit if the materials were posted by someone else. You may have to give the poster notice of the complaint. If you do not believe that the materials are infringing, or if you believe that you are making fair use of the materials, you may choose to take the risk of not removing the materials, but a lawsuit might follow in which the complainer tries to prove they they are right and you are wrong. If the accuser obtains a court order, then you must take down the materials. [back to notice text] Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement? Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. [back to notice text] Question: What does it mean to be directly liable? Answer: Direct liability is where the person or organization is held responsible for its own actions or failure to act. Contrast this with vicarious liability, where the person or organization is held responsible for harm caused by other persons (e.g. agents). [back to notice text] Question: What is libel? Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim? [back to notice text] Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim? Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements: a publication to one other than the person defamed; a false statement of fact; that is understood as a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. [back to notice text] Question: What is libel per se? Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se: A statement that falsely: Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity. Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. [back to notice text] Question: What are "punitive damages"? Answer: Punitive damages are damages intended to punish and deter similar wrongful conduct rather than merely compensate for losses suffered by the plaintiff (called compensatory damages). Punitive damages are authorized when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit. As for the amount of punitive damages awardable, the Supreme Court has held that three guidelines help determine whether a punitive-damages award violates constitutional due process: (1) the reprehensibility of the conduct being punished; (2) the reasonableness of the relationship between the harm and the award; and (3) the difference between the award and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases." BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996).

Topic maintained by Stanford Center for Internet & Society