Vicarious infringement refers to the situation where an individual is held accountable for the copyright or trademark infringement committed by another person. This occurs when the individual possesses the authority to control the infringing activity and has a financial stake in it. It is not necessary for the person to have knowledge of the infringement or intend to commit it. This concept holds significance in the online realm, where it is more convenient for individuals to violate the rights of others.
Vicarious infringement refers to a form of secondary liability for direct infringement. It implies that an individual can be held accountable for someone else’s infringement if they possessed the authority to control the infringing activity and had a financial stake in it. The individual does not necessarily need to have been aware of the infringement or intended for it to occur. For instance, if a company hires someone to develop a website for them and that website violates someone else’s copyright, the company could be held vicariously responsible for the infringement due to their control over the website and financial interest in it. The concept of vicarious infringement holds significance in cases involving both copyright and trademark infringement. However, trademark infringement cases often require a higher degree of control or involvement in the infringing activity compared to copyright infringement cases. In recent times, the concept of vicarious infringement has gained particular relevance in the context of the internet. For example, in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., the Supreme Court determined that Grokster, a file-sharing service, could be held vicariously liable for the copyright infringement committed by its users because it possessed the power to control the infringing activity and had a financial interest in it.
Vicarious infringement refers to a situation where someone can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by another person, even if they did not directly participate in the infringing activity.
Direct infringement occurs when a person personally engages in copyright infringement, while vicarious infringement occurs when someone has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and derives a direct financial benefit from it.
Yes, an employer can be held liable for vicarious infringement if the employee’s infringing activity occurs within the scope of their employment and the employer has the right and ability to control the employee’s actions.
Yes, a website owner can be held liable for vicarious infringement if they have the right and ability to control the infringing activity on their platform and derive a direct financial benefit from it.
Courts consider factors such as the defendant’s right and ability to control the infringing activity, their financial interest in the infringement, and whether they have taken any steps to prevent or stop the infringement.
No, in order to establish vicarious infringement, the copyright holder must first prove that direct infringement has occurred. Vicarious infringement is a secondary liability theory.
No, in order to be held liable for vicarious infringement, the person must have knowledge of the infringing activity and derive a direct financial benefit from it.
It is possible for a parent to be held liable for vicarious infringement committed by their child if the parent has the right and ability to control the child’s actions and derives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.
Yes, a copyright holder can seek damages for vicarious infringement, including actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement and any profits the infringer made from the infringement.
Yes, a defendant can raise defences such as fair use, lack of knowledge of the infringing activity, or lack of control over the infringing activity as defences against a claim of vicarious infringement. However, the availability and success of these defences will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/vicarious-infringement/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Vicarious Infringement. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/vicarious-infringement/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Vicarious Infringement. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/vicarious-infringement/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Vicarious Infringement. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/vicarious-infringement/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts