For a website owner&#39;s ToS to shield him/her from liability, does it have to be written in terms of a proper legal entity, like an LLC? Suppose Bob and Terry Jones own the domain example.org, and are going to start a website called ExamplePedia. It will be a lot like Wikipedia: a non-profit, web 2.0 site, hosting collaboratively edited informational content, for the public good. Since the Wikimedia ToS is available under cc-by-sa, it makes sense for Bob and Terry to copy it and make appropriate substitutions. But how? Wikimedia's ToS explains that "we" or "us" will refer to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. What do Bob and Terry put here? It seems like there are a few options: (1) "we" or "us" will refer to Bob and Terry Jones (2) "we" or "us" will refer to example.org (3) "we" or "us" will refer to ExamplePedia Or maybe Bob and Terry should form a proper legal entity, like ExampleWorks, LLC, and use (4) "we" or "us" will refer to ExampleWorks, LLC Now suppose something posted on ExamplePedia infringed copyright and the copyright owner wanted to sue. Would (1) would leave Bob and Terry personally liable, even though the ToS clearly states that they only host the content, and the users are responsible for it? Options (2) and (3) sound nice, but are they in any way legitimate? Surely example.org and ExamplePedia don't become real legal entities, just because Bob and Terry own the domain name, and call their website a certain thing...or do they? Is (4) the only way to actually limit liability?
Liability of a Person LLC means "Limited Liability Company"; in the absence of such an entity (or equivalent) there is no "Limited Liability". A partnership, which is what you are describing, or an individual has unlimited liability. What this means is: An individual (operating alone or as a member of a partnership) is liable for their actions. They are responsible for the debts the business incurs (including those arising from legal liability) and must pay for them from their personal assets. A company is liable for its actions, however, the members of that company are liable only to the extent of the money that they have invested. Contractual protection A person (which includes individuals and companies) can attempt to limit liability by contract, however, there are limitations to this: Your liability is only limited against people who are bound by the contract; third parties (like an aggrieved copyright holder) are not Most jurisdictions restrict limits to liability that can be made in consumer contracts and some B2B arrangements You can't contract outside the law: if the law says you are liable then your contract that says otherwise is not worth a pinch of s***. You are only liable for what you are liable for To have a liability, you have to have done (or not done) something that created a liability under statute, tort or contract. There are legal means in many jurisdictions that protect content hosts from copyright claims: but you have to do what the law says you have to do to avail yourself of them. "we" or "us" will refer to ... ... has to be the person(s) that are running the business - if that is Bob and Terry Jones then that's what you write, if it is ExampleWorks LLC, write that. It cant be "example.org" because that is a domain name; not a legal person. It can't be "ExamplePedia" because wtf is that anyway? Get real advice You are running a business and exposing yourselves to liabilities and losses that you know about and probably a bunch that you don't know about. When you learnt to drive a car, or ski, or play soccer you got instruction from people who knew how to do what you wanted to do: running a business is exactly the same: get proper advice from people who know what they're taking about and pay for it if you have to.
A name is not protected by copyright. It can be protected as a trademark, but it would almost certainly be allowed as nominative fair use, since the alternative of indirect descriptive reference ("the grocery store founded in 1930 by George W. Jenkins") is not only cumbersome, but it doesn't even answer the question, where only the name can be used. Trademark protection is not absolute ownership of a word, it is the right to a specific use of a word (e.g. to identify a specific brand of computer for commercial purposes). If you use a trademark symbol, you have to be careful to use the right one (it may be illegal to imply registration by using R when the trademark is not registered). As far as I can determine, there is no obligation for a third party to so mark trademark terms, though it is commonly done.
A web site's Terms of Service are not a contract but, rather, a license. law.washington.edu has an interesting discussion of contracts vs. licenses and asks the question, "Does it matter?" In the case of a web site, the owner of the web site is granting you a license, subject to certain terms, to access the web site and use it. No consideration is required for a license. From the linked article, which discusses copyright, "In the context of copyright law, a 'license' is a permission to do an act that, without the permission, would be unlawful." In the case of a web site's terms and conditions, the owner is granting permission to you to access and use the web site subject to the terms of the license. Typically, such a license will require you to release any liability that may accrue because of your use of the site. The Stack Exchange license, in fact, grants certain permissions related to copyright, "Subscriber may download or copy the Content, and other items displayed on the Network for download, for personal use, provided that Subscriber maintains all copyright and other notices contained in such Content." The Stack Exchange license also places requirements on those who contribute to discussion including a requirement to "perpetually and irrevocably [license] to Stack Exchange" anything we post. In this case, by pressing the "Post Your Answer" question, I have agreed to license my creation, this answer, to Stack Exchange.
It may not be libel, but it may violate other statutes and may support a judgement against the person publishing this information as long as there is an injury-in-fact ("an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"). A recent case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins 578 U.S. ___ (2016) considered the case where a company created a profile for a person. That profile stated "that he is married, has children, is in his 50’s, has a job, is relatively affluent, and holds a graduate degree". The plaintiff asserted that all of this was incorrect. The plaintiff made a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information was false. However, mere violation of statute is not sufficient to meet the "injury-in-fact" requirement for standing. Congress can't create standing via statute. Injury-in-fact still requires a "concrete" injury. This does not need to be a physical, tangible injury. But, it does need to be concrete. On its own, publication of false information, even when statute prohibits it, does not create standing. There must be an injury-in-fact.
According to the current version of the TOS: You own the rights to the content you create and post on Medium. By posting content to Medium, you give us a nonexclusive license to publish it on Medium Services, including anything reasonably related to publishing it (like storing, displaying, reformatting, and distributing it). In consideration for Medium granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Medium may enable advertising on the Services, including in connection with the display of your content or other information. We may also use your content to promote Medium, including its products and content. We will never sell your content to third parties without your explicit permission. This explicitly says you own your content, although Medium has some rights to do some things. And they won't sell it without permission, so unless Medium itself is publishing this book, it would seem to be copyright infringement. (Of course, I don't know what the TOS said when you originally wrote the article.) If what was copied was not copyrightable (like a quote from the Constitution, or a simple uncreative graph of something obvious) then it wouldn't be infringement. But your article was probably more than that.
You are framing it wrong. It is not that "they have put a barrier" to public domain information, it is that they have added an additional source of that information. The new source has a barrier, yes, but that does not prevent you from accessing the same information elsewhere. If you own a copy of some public domain data, you are not allowed to prevent other users from accessing other copies (by claiming copyright infringement or the like); you cannot even prevent people from doing copies from the copies you did provide them. But you are not forced to allow other users to access your copy. Consider the logical conclusion if that were the law. The moment that you downloaded some public domain file into your computer, you would be forced to give access to your hard disk from the internet, isn't it? Would you need to leave your home door open if you happened to have a printed copy of the text there? Of course, there is a need to discriminate between "public domain" (without licence) and "not public domain but open licence" (BSD, CC, GPL, etc.). In the later case the licence could be tailored so that the work could appear in archive.org but that it would be illegal to provide it with the business model of Academia.edu1. But that would be possible only for works not in the public domain. 1 To be decided by a judge on the basis of the wording of the licence and jurisdiction.
Content posted to the web is usually openly accessible to all (unless protected by a password, paywall, or similar restriction). But that does not mean it is freely copyable by all. Such content is protected by copyright in just the same way as if it had been published in a book of essays by various contributors. Unless the copyright holders (who are likely to be the original authors, but might not be) give permission, or an exception to copyright applies, copying such content would be clear and obvious copyright infringement, and any copyright holder could sue for damages. Permission could be given by publishing the content under a permissive license, such as a CC-BY-SA license, or any of many other available permissive licenses. Or a would-be reuser could find the copyright holders and ask for permission. If the holder cannot be found or identified, or does not respond, then no permission has been granted. In the US the main exception to copyright is fair use. See this answer and other threads with the fair-use tag here for more on fair use. Since the question seems to contemplate using the whole of the posted content, since it might well damage any potential market for that content, and since the use does not seem to be &quot;transformative&quot;, nor used for criticism or comment, a finding of fair use for this situation seems unlikely. But Fair use findings are very much fact-driven, and the exact facts do matter. Thus I cannot be at all sure whether a court would find this toi be fair use or not. In other countries there are a variety of exceptions to copyright, and I have not come close to reviewing them all. But none of the ones I know of seem to apply to the situation described in the question. Many are narrower than the US concept of fair use. I fear that without permission, copying this content would be infringement. However, it would not be infringement to create a site that includes a link to the existing content, and a summary or description of that content, along with new content, including comments on the old, with brief quotes to indicate what is being commented on.
Yes, it does. Using the downloaded content, whether it was scraped or individually downloaded one file at a time, for research or for commercial purposes would violate that TOS provision (unless some other provision contradicts it, or you obtain specific permission). The site owner could sue you for such a violation, should the owner become aware of it. I do not think it would be likely to be a criminal offense, depending on the jurisdiction.