08Nov

Stolen Content on Your Digital Platform: When Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement?

Introduction

Imagine that you manage a digital platform that allows users to publish images, articles, videos, and audio files. Your platform is experiencing continuous growth in user numbers and engagement. Suddenly, a content creator files a complaint claiming that a user has published their copyrighted work without permission, demanding that the content be removed and the party responsible for making it available be held accountable.

This raises an important legal question: Is the platform liable for all content published by its users, or is its responsibility limited to providing the technical service? What happens if the platform receives an official notice regarding copied content but fails to take appropriate action?

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the liability of digital platforms for copyright infringements is no longer left entirely to discretion. The new Copyright Law and its Implementing Regulations address the liability of Internet content providers and establish specific conditions for benefiting from exemption from liability, alongside a notice-and-takedown mechanism for infringing content.

Therefore, companies operating websites, social media platforms, and digital services need to understand the limits of their legal responsibilities to avoid turning their content-publishing services into a source of legal claims or intellectual property disputes.

First: What Constitutes Copyright Infringement on Digital Platforms?

Copyright infringement occurs when a protected work is used without obtaining the necessary permission or license from the rights holder, or beyond the limits permitted by the license or applicable law.

Protected works that may be subject to infringement on digital platforms include:

Articles and written content.
Images, designs, and illustrations.
Videos and audiovisual works.
Audio recordings and music.
E-books and educational materials.
Software, applications, and protected databases.
Creative works published through websites and applications.

Examples of infringement on a platform include a user copying an article from another website and publishing it under their own name, uploading a film or audio recording they do not have the right to distribute, or republishing a commercial design without its owner’s consent.

It is also important to distinguish between an abstract idea and its creative expression. Copyright protection does not mean that general ideas or topics can be monopolized; rather, it protects the expression embodied in a work that qualifies for protection under the law.

Therefore, simply claiming that a particular topic resembles someone’s idea is not sufficient to establish copyright infringement. The nature of the disputed work and the extent of any unauthorized quotation, copying, or exploitation of protected expression must be examined.

Second: Is the Platform Liable for All Content Published by Its Users?

The answer is neither an absolute yes nor an absolute no.

Saudi law distinguishes between a service provider whose role is limited to performing automatic technical operations related to transmitting, storing, or displaying content, and an entity that intervenes in the content or becomes aware of an infringement but fails to address it in accordance with its legal obligations.

Article 49 of the new Copyright Law addresses circumstances in which an Internet content provider is not considered a party to an infringement committed by one of its service users, provided that the specified legal conditions are met.

The most important of these conditions include:

Data transmission, routing, storage, and display must be purely automatic technical processes.
The service provider must not modify the content of the work, except for certain necessary automatic technical modifications or modifications made at the user’s request, in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.
The service provider must not have actual knowledge of the infringement, and there must be no circumstances that clearly indicate such knowledge.
The provider must take the necessary action to remove the infringing content within a reasonable period after becoming aware of it.
The provider must establish the necessary measures enabling rights holders to report infringements occurring through its service.

This means that the mere presence of infringing content on a digital platform does not automatically make the platform liable. However, continuing to make such content available after becoming aware of the infringement, or failing to provide an effective reporting mechanism, may affect its legal position.

Most importantly, this protection is not a general exemption from all obligations. It depends on the nature of the service, the provider’s conduct, and its compliance with the conditions set out in the Law and its Implementing Regulations.

Third: When Does a Platform Lose Its Legal Protection and Become Exposed to Liability?

A platform may face legal risks when it goes beyond its neutral technical role or fails to comply with the procedures required to address infringing content.

The most notable situations requiring attention include:

1. Becoming Aware of Infringing Content Without Taking Action

If the platform receives a notice that meets the legal requirements and identifies the work subject to infringement and the link where it appears, but fails to address it within the specified timeframe and procedures, it may lose one of the conditions necessary to benefit from the exemption.

It is not sufficient for a platform to have a general policy stating that it respects intellectual property rights while failing to provide a team or mechanism to review and handle complaints effectively.

2. Intervening in Content Beyond Its Technical Role

If the platform modifies user content, rewrites it, produces a copy of it, or intervenes in the way it is exploited, its liability may be assessed differently from that of a platform that merely provides technical tools for publishing and storage.

The nature, extent, and relationship of such intervention to the alleged infringement must be examined, rather than assuming that every technical modification automatically makes the platform liable.

3. Receiving Direct Financial Benefits from the Infringing Activity

One of the conditions set out in the Implementing Regulations is that the Internet content provider must not obtain a direct financial benefit resulting from the infringing activity.

This highlights the importance of reviewing revenue models within digital platforms, particularly when infringing content is directly linked to generating revenue for the platform.

Not every form of income generated through advertisements or subscriptions is, by itself, sufficient to establish that this condition has been met or violated. The nature of the financial benefit and its direct connection to the infringing activity must be examined.

4. Lacking a Policy for Dealing with Repeat Infringers

If certain accounts repeatedly publish stolen works and the platform fails to take clear measures to restrict or terminate those accounts under a written policy, it may face difficulties demonstrating compliance with the required conditions.

Therefore, the platform’s policy should not be limited to removing the specific post reported. It should also include procedures for dealing with users whose repeated infringements have been established.

Fourth: What Happens When a Rights Holder Reports Stolen Content?

The Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law establish a clear notice-and-takedown mechanism designed to enable rights holders to seek protection for their works while giving platforms an opportunity to handle complaints through specific procedures.

This process begins when the rights holder or their representative submits a notice to the Internet content provider, provided there are reasonable grounds indicating that an infringement has occurred.

Under Article 85 of the Implementing Regulations, the notice must include essential information, most notably:

The name, capacity, address, and contact details of the person submitting the notice.
A description of the protected right and the facts constituting the alleged infringement.
The link or electronic location where the infringing content appears.
A declaration by the person submitting the notice that they are the rights holder or their representative and that no license or authorization has been granted to use the work.
A declaration confirming that the notice is submitted in good faith.

These details help the platform identify the content subject to the complaint and verify the nature of the claim, rather than dealing with general reports that fail to identify the work or its location.

Providing a direct link to the content also makes the review process more accurate and helps reduce the possibility of removing content unrelated to the complaint.

Fifth: The 48-Business-Hour Deadline: What Must the Platform Do?

One of the most important obligations digital platforms must pay attention to is the requirement set out in Article 87 of the Implementing Regulations.

The Regulations stipulate, as one of the conditions for exemption from liability, that the Internet content provider must remove the infringing content or disable access to it within a period not exceeding 48 business hours from the date it becomes aware of the infringement or receives a complete notice from the rights holder, whichever occurs first.

This distinction is important because the deadline does not always begin when the official notice is received. It may begin when the service provider becomes aware of the infringement, if that occurs before receiving the complete notice.

Accordingly, the platform should not wait for a court claim or a final decision before addressing content for which there is credible evidence of infringement.

The platform needs to organize internal procedures that ensure:

Recording the date and time each notice is received.
Verifying that the complaint contains all required information.
Identifying the content and link subject to the claim.
Referring the complaint to the relevant employee or department.
Taking the required action within the legal timeframe.
Maintaining records showing when the notice was received, the review outcome, and the action taken.

It is important to emphasize that the 48-business-hour period does not give the platform permission to ignore the content until the deadline expires. Rather, it is the maximum timeframe specified as part of the exemption conditions, while prompt handling of complaints remains an essential part of legal risk management.

Sixth: Does the User Have the Right to Object to the Removal of Their Content?

Yes. The Regulations do not make the notice-and-takedown process dependent on removing content without giving the affected user any opportunity to respond.

Article 86 provides that a user whose content has been removed has the right to submit a counter-notice explaining that the removal occurred by mistake or as a result of incorrect identification.

Upon receiving a counter-notice, the Internet content provider must notify the original complainant within a period not exceeding two business days from the date the counter-notice is received.

This mechanism helps balance the rights holder’s interest in protecting their work with the user’s interest in ensuring that their content is not removed without a valid reason.

For example, a user may publish an image that they are legally licensed to use, but another person submits a complaint claiming ownership of it. In this situation, the user may provide evidence of their right to use the image, such as a licensing agreement, rights-transfer documents, or correspondence proving authorization.

Submitting a counter-notice does not automatically make the content lawful, nor does it necessarily mean that the original complaint was malicious. The documents and facts must be examined to determine the rights holder and the scope of the license.

Seventh: Is Removing the Content Enough to Protect the Platform from Liability?

Removing the content is an important step, but it is not the only required measure.

The Implementing Regulations require several conditions to be met collectively in order to benefit from the exemption from liability. Simply removing a post after receiving a complaint is not sufficient.

These conditions include:

The service provider’s role must be purely technical or performed at the user’s request, without modifying the content and without knowledge of the infringement or circumstances that clearly indicate such knowledge.
Providing a mechanism that allows rights holders to report infringing content.
Removing the content or disabling access to it within no more than 48 business hours from becoming aware of the infringement or receiving a complete notice, whichever occurs first.
Not obtaining a direct financial benefit from the infringing activity.
Having a clear written policy for terminating or restricting the accounts of users whose repeated infringements have been established.
Complying with the applicable legal and procedural requirements approved by the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property.

Companies should not treat removing a post as a final solution to every dispute. Other issues may arise concerning repeated infringement, compensation, the original user’s liability, or the platform’s level of intervention in the content.

Furthermore, the exemption provided under the Regulations relates to liability for infringement subject to its conditions. It does not exempt the platform from all other liabilities that may arise under different laws.

Eighth: What Is the Difference Between a Digital Platform and a Technical Infrastructure Provider?

Not every technical activity necessarily falls within the definition of an Internet content provider under this chapter of the Regulations.

Article 83 addresses the scope of application of the digital enforcement provisions to Internet content providers that engage in activities enabling users to access the rights established under the Law and its Implementing Regulations.

In contrast, Article 84 clarifies that the provisions of this chapter do not apply to services whose activities are limited to providing technical infrastructure or private hosting that does not make protected rights accessible to the public, provided that this is not part of their main activity.

This means that the legal classification of a service requires an understanding of the nature of the company’s activities, rather than relying solely on its trade name or its description of itself as a technology company.

For example, the nature of liability may differ between:

A platform that allows users to upload images and videos and publish them publicly.
A website that allows members to publish articles and written materials.
A private cloud storage service that does not provide public access to files.
A company that provides technical support services to another platform.

Therefore, the nature of the service, its functions, and the way it handles content must be examined before determining which legal provisions apply.

Ninth: What Happens If the Platform Ignores the Notice or the Infringement Is Repeated?

Legal procedures do not end with sending a notice to the platform.

Article 90 of the Implementing Regulations explains that the notice-and-takedown mechanism is the procedure that must first be applied in cases falling within its scope.

The Authority does not initiate blocking or referral procedures except in specific circumstances, including:

The Internet content provider fails to comply with the legal notice.
The service provider cannot be identified or contacted.
The infringement is repeated.
The infringement continues despite the removal of the content.

Article 91 also authorizes the Authority to temporarily block websites or other digital media through a decision issued by the Authority’s President. This is an exceptional and temporary measure that may be taken when necessary to prevent the continuation of the infringement and after it has not been possible to resolve the matter through the preceding procedures.

This confirms that ignoring notices or handling them merely as a formality may lead to further measures that have a greater impact on the platform’s operations and service continuity.

From a practical perspective, companies should not wait until the matter reaches the stage of blocking or referral. An effective internal system for handling complaints can help resolve issues early and reduce their consequences.

Tenth: How Can Your Company Protect Itself from Liability for Stolen Content?

Protecting a platform does not begin after the first complaint is received. It begins with designing the service and establishing its policies and terms of use.

The following measures can help companies build a stronger legal compliance framework:

1. Establishing a Clear Intellectual Property Policy

The platform’s terms of use should include explicit provisions requiring users not to publish any work they do not have the right to use or distribute, while clarifying the measures that may be taken when an infringement is established.

The policy should also be clearly accessible to users before they use the service.

2. Providing an Official Channel for Receiving Complaints

A simple and direct method should be established to allow rights holders to submit complaints, whether through an online form, a dedicated email address, or an internal complaint management system.

The channel should preferably allow users to attach documents and links that help verify the claim.

3. Assigning Responsibility to the Content Review Team

It is important to identify the department responsible for receiving, reviewing, and following up on complaints, with clear authority to take the necessary action without unjustified delays.

Complaints should not be left scattered between customer service, marketing, and technical support departments without clearly assigned responsibility.

4. Establishing a Policy for Dealing with Repeat Infringers

The platform’s policy should include clear, gradual procedures for dealing with accounts that are proven to repeatedly use infringing content. These measures may include warnings, restricting certain functions, or terminating the account, depending on the nature of the infringement and the applicable requirements.

5. Maintaining Records of Complaints and Actions Taken

Documenting complaints, their receipt dates, and the actions taken is one of the most important ways to demonstrate the platform’s compliance with its obligations.

It is useful to maintain records that include:

Notice details and the date it was received.
The identity of the employee responsible for reviewing it.
The link or content subject to the complaint.
The outcome of the review.
The decision to remove or retain the content and the reasons behind it.
Any counter-notice and related correspondence.

6. Reviewing User and Content Creator Agreements

If the platform allows users to publish their works or generate revenue from them, its agreements must clarify the scope of the license granted to the platform, the user’s rights, and their responsibilities for the content they upload.

It should not be assumed that uploading content automatically grants the platform all rights to exploit or republish it through any means.

7. Training Employees to Handle Intellectual Property Complaints

A lack of legal knowledge among support staff may result in the removal of lawful content or the neglect of a valid complaint.

Therefore, companies need to train employees to distinguish between complete and unclear notices, understand the difference between ownership of a work and the right to use it, and know which procedures must be followed when a dispute arises.

Eleventh: How Can a Rights Holder Prove That Their Content Has Been Stolen?

Protecting the rights holder is just as important as fulfilling the platform’s obligations. The rights holder needs to prepare clear evidence that helps establish ownership and demonstrate that an infringement has occurred.

The most important documents and information that may support their position include:

1. The Original Copy of the Work: Such as the original design file, the first version of an article, the original audio recording, or project files showing the stages of production.

2. Evidence of the Work’s Creation or Publication Date: Such as publication records, correspondence, dated files, backups, and other evidence that helps establish the chronological sequence of events.

3. Documents Proving Ownership or Transfer of Rights: Such as assignment agreements, licenses, commissioned-work agreements, or documents establishing the legal capacity of the person submitting the complaint.

4. Documentation of the Infringing Content: By preserving the link, screenshots, the date the infringement was discovered, and available technical data, while maintaining the integrity of the evidence and avoiding reliance solely on an image whose source may be difficult to verify.

5. Precisely Identifying the Infringing Material: The copied portion or content used without permission must be clearly identified, rather than simply claiming that the platform stole the entire work.

It should be noted that registration with the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property may be an important means of documenting a work and supporting proof of ownership under the Law. However, protection does not necessarily depend on registration when the legal conditions for protection are met.

The Implementing Regulations have also established requirements for accepting complaints by the Authority, including proof of the complainant’s legal standing and the submission of a technical examination report explaining the facts of the infringement and the subject of the claim, in addition to other requirements depending on the circumstances.

Twelfth: The Role of a Lawyer in Protecting Digital Platforms and Content Owners

Disputes involving copyright in the digital environment require an understanding of legal, technical, and contractual aspects. Determining liability does not depend solely on the existence of copied content. It also requires examining the nature of the service, how the content was published, the platform’s knowledge of the infringement, and the measures it took.

A lawyer specializing in intellectual property can provide several important services, including:

Reviewing terms of use, publishing policies, and procedures for reporting infringing content.
Drafting or reviewing licensing agreements and agreements governing the exploitation of digital works.
Assessing whether the provisions governing Internet content provider liability apply to the platform’s activities.
Providing legal advice regarding notices, objections, and required procedures.
Examining technical evidence and documents proving ownership of the work or the occurrence of infringement.
Representing rights holders or companies in disputes and legal claims, subject to the appropriate legal capacity and authorization.
Establishing preventive procedures that help reduce the risk of copyright infringement within digital services.

Early legal consultation is important because it helps companies identify weaknesses in their policies before they develop into disputes. It also helps rights holders choose the appropriate legal measures to protect their works without taking poorly considered steps.

Thirteenth: Legal Compliance Checklist for Digital Platforms

Before launching a digital platform or developing a service that allows users to publish content, it is advisable to ensure that the following elements are in place:

A clear written intellectual property policy.
Terms of use requiring users to respect the rights of others.
An official channel for receiving rights holders’ notices.
A mechanism for verifying complaint information and completeness.
An internal procedure for handling infringing content within the legal timeframe.
A system for documenting complaints and removal decisions.
A mechanism for receiving and reviewing counter-notices.
A written policy for dealing with accounts repeatedly involved in infringements.
A review of the revenue model to assess any direct financial benefit from infringing activity.
A review of contracts and licenses relating to content hosted or exploited by the platform.

Having these elements in place does not grant the platform automatic immunity. However, it helps establish procedures that comply with legal requirements and strengthens the platform’s ability to handle disputes in an organized manner.

Conclusion: Protecting Your Platform Starts Before the First Complaint

Companies operating digital platforms can no longer treat copyright protection as the sole responsibility of users. The nature of the service and the procedures followed when infringing content is discovered may directly affect the platform’s legal position.

The new Saudi Copyright Law and its Implementing Regulations have established a framework that balances the protection of rights holders with avoiding the imposition of absolute liability on technical service providers for everything published by users.

However, benefiting from the exemption from liability depends on collectively meeting the legal conditions, including the absence of knowledge of the infringement in accordance with the applicable requirements, providing a reporting mechanism, and removing the content within no more than 48 business hours from becoming aware of the infringement or receiving a complete notice, whichever occurs first, alongside the remaining conditions.

Therefore, the best way to protect your company is not to wait for a complaint, but to establish a clear legal policy and practical procedures that ensure respect for copyright and the prompt, organized handling of any infringing content.

Suleiman Al-Omari Intellectual Property Law Office

Suleiman Al-Omari Intellectual Property Law Office provides specialized legal services, including the protection of copyright and digital works, reviewing licensing, publishing, and content exploitation agreements, providing legal consultations to digital platforms and companies, following up on intellectual property infringement cases, and working to protect rights in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

📞 Contact Suleiman Al-Omari Intellectual Property Law Office:

+966537778130

This article is intended for educational purposes and provides general information about the liability of digital platforms for copyright infringements. It does not constitute a substitute for specialized legal advice. Liability and applicable procedures vary depending on the nature of the platform, the facts, the supporting documents, and the applicable laws and regulations.