3. YouTube and Google TV. The legal problem raised by YouTube, bought in 2006 by Google for 1.6 billion US dollars, arises from the platform’s very attitude, which incites users to publish a maximum of content on its site, yet seems to close its eyes when this content violates copyright. In accepting the placing online of numerous protected contents (copies of films, series, TV programmes) which generate significant traffic and lead to advertising income, YouTube represents a real short-circuit risk for the economic system of the audiovisual world. The question here is to what extent is a host website responsible for the contents distributed on its platform. ‘The lawsuit instigated by Viacom, a major media group which includes Paramount and MTV, gave rise to a judgment which was favourable to YouTube in June 2010. For the judge, the platform’s indirect responsibility cannot be subject to accusation. Viacom has appealed. If the decision in the first instance is upheld, it will have the effect of limiting the obligations – putting in place a filtering system, for example – which weigh on so-called ‘user generated content’ sites.’ Google is nevertheless progressively becoming aware that the only way of having available quality content with strong value added – which would improve the profitability of YouTube’s current economic model – is to sign contracts with rights’ owners.

The announcement of the Google TV project, in May 2010, has for its part raised a wave of anxieties on the part of television channels and internet access providers.  The idea of bringing the web to the television sets worries numerous actors within the audiovisual sector, in particular because Google – which would provide users with interface access as well as its own services – would be capable of becoming the world’s largest television channel. ‘Currently it is no more than an announcement. There is even so already a pretty clear boycott on behalf of the major networks and audiovisual producers, who do not wish to find themselves instrumentalised by Google TV. Without a doubt Google TV will progressively sign contracts with different audiovisual actors. The development of the project will certainly experience one or two bumpy rides because the economic stakes in this domain are very significant.’

4. Google Image. Starting from a request based on words, the Google Image service facilitates access to images which have been posted online by users. Sometimes these photographs have been placed online without the authorisation of the photographers. In the United States, Germany and France, legal proceedings instigated for violation of authors’ rights have instead seen Google winning the cases. As is the case for YouTube, the argument of indirect responsibility has weighed more heavily in the scales of justice.  Accusations of a direct responsibility are all the more difficult here as the image results offered by Google Image are obtained by mathematical algorithms, without Google offering an editorial framework or packaging, as it does for Google News and YouTube. In several respects Google is in addition showing certain signs of prudence: the image offered is never that of the original, it is instead a vignette with a much smaller format; a written text reminds people of the possibilities of image protection by copyright. ‘Google Image has put its finger on a very interesting question, one which is absent from the traditional media: that of the hypertext link. Is there any responsibility when one establishes a hypertext link towards certain content? The legal response varies: if the hypertext link provider adopts the illegal content to which it directs the internet user it could lead to accusations concerning its responsibility, but not if the referencing is done automatically. A hypertext link has in addition been considered as a manifestation of the freedom of expression, which is to say that it is protected, but that it could also be restricted in the same way as other forms of expression.’

In the light of these first four chapters it would thus seem that the Google model, as far as content protected by authors’ rights is concerned, is evolving to a more classical rehash based on agreements signed with publishers. Generally speaking, Google is becoming more and more open to the idea of paying the producers of the content it distributes.