The Risks of User-Supplied Content Online

  • Rónán Kennedy


Websites which rely on user-generated or user-supplied content (USC) run a variety of legal risks, as innocent, uninformed or malicious users may post material which infringes copyright, is defamatory, obscene or otherwise illegal. Amongst the strategies which developers might use to mitigate these risks are indemnities, moderation of content and designing systems in order to avail of the various ‘safe harbours’ which have been developed specifically for online service providers. As the first two strategies have a number of legal and practical drawbacks, the primary protection must be the safe harbours. In an increasingly globalised world, it is unsafe to ignore foreign laws and therefore USC sites should employ a robust but measured notice-and-takedown procedure.


Service Provider Legal Liability Hate Speech Safe Harbour Copyright Infringement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akester, P. (2005). Copyright and the P2P Challenge. European Intellectual Property Review 27, 106–112.Google Scholar
  2. Batzel v. Kremers 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
  3. Carolan, M. (2006) Man avoids jail after material about barrister removed from website. Irish Times, November 24, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. CBS Songs v. Amstrad Consumer Electronics [1988] AC 1013.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. and Smyth, S. (2005) Intellectual Property Law in Ireland. Tottel, Haywards Heath.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, J. (2006) When online gets out of line. Irish Times, November 25, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review (2007). Case Comment. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 13, N115.Google Scholar
  8. fCubby Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. 776 F Suppl. 135 (SDNY 1991).Google Scholar
  9. Gatt, A. (2002) Electronic Commerce — Click-Wrap Agreements. Computer Law and Security Report 18, 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godfrey v. Demon (1999) EMLR 542.Google Scholar
  11. Goldsmith, J. and Wu, T. (2006) Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Holmes, S. and Ganley, P. (2007) User-generated Content and the Law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2, 338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, P. (2003) All Wrapped Up? A Review Of The Enforceability Of “Shrink-Wrap” and “Click-Wrap” Licences in the United Kingdom and the United States. European Intellectual Property Review 25, 98–102.Google Scholar
  14. Levine, R. (2006) Billy Bragg's MySpace Protest Movement. New York Times, July 31, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Lloyd, I. (2004) Information Technology Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. McGonagle, M. (2003) Media Law. Round Hall, Dublin.Google Scholar
  17. McIntyre, T.J. (2004) Online Anonymity: Some Legal Issues. Commercial Law Practitioner 11, 90–95.Google Scholar
  18. McMahon, B. and Binchy, W. (2000) Law of Torts. LexisNexis, Dublin.Google Scholar
  19. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. v. Grokster Inc. 545 U.S. 913 (2005).Google Scholar
  20. Miles, J. and Caunt, D. (2007) Brave New World. Copyright World 168, 24–26.Google Scholar
  21. Orlowski, A. (2006) Billy Bragg prompts Myspace rethink. The Register, June 8, 2006, available at
  22. Playboy v. Frena 839 F Suppl 1552 (MD FL, 1993).Google Scholar
  23. Reed, C. (2004) Internet Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom On-line Communications Services Inc. 907 F Suppl. 1361 (ND Cal.1995).Google Scholar
  25. Samuelson, P. (2006). Three Reactions to MGM v. Grokster. Michigan Telecommunications Technology Law Review, 13, 177–196.Google Scholar
  26. Sony Corporation of America v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984).Google Scholar
  27. Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. 23 Media Law Reports 1794 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995).Google Scholar
  28. Timmons, H. and Pfanner, E. (2006) U.S. Law Causing Turmoil in Online Gambling Industry. New York Times, November 1, 2006.Google Scholar
  29. Urban, J.M. and Quilter, L. (2006). Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 22, 621–693.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, M. and Seet, S. (2006) Authorisation in the Digital Age: Copyright Liability in Australia after Cooper and Kazaa. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 12, 74–77.Google Scholar
  31. Zeran v. America Online Inc. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rónán Kennedy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations