Intellectual property law #6: E-reputation and the right to be forgotten
In this latest edition of Face au droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Décideurs TV’s Laura-Jane Gautier interviews Mathieu Coulaud, Legal Delegate of Syntec Numérique, and Jean-Sébastien Mariez, Lawyer at De Gaulle, Fleurance & Associés.
Following a resounding CJEU ruling on the right to be forgotten on May 13, 2014 (Google Inc. and Google Spain v.AEPD and Mr. Costeja Gonzalez), our experts take another look at the definition of e-reputation.
They explain which actions can be punished on the web for damaging an e-reputation, how to put a stop to litigious actions and how to constitute sufficient proof. They also explain how to deal with the platform and host.
Finally, they explain how to request de-indexation and the rules governing the right to be forgotten.
<p>Program produced by Décideurs TV. July 2014.</p>rn
The sixth Face au Droit intellectual-property episode turns to online reputation and the possibility of limiting the visibility of certain personal information. Search engines and social networks can circulate content long after its original publication.
People and organisations should distinguish requests to correct inaccurate information, delete content at its source and seek delisting from search results. These remedies have different conditions and must be balanced with freedom of expression and the public interest; the historical programme is not a substitute for current legal guidance.
Data governance should be designed before a new digital service is deployed. A useful assessment considers the purpose of processing, possible effects on individuals, information flows, retention and the responsibilities of different actors. The most effective measures combine privacy-aware design with training, documentation and incident preparation. Complex or cross-border cases deserve careful legal analysis. Historic disputes and debates remain informative because they explain tensions between innovation, enforcement and individual rights, even if later rules have changed the available remedies.
