The Vancouver Sun reported recently that Zoocasa has lost a legal case in which two Century 21 real estate agents have been awarded a total of $32,000 in damages for copyright infringement after another company posted their listings online.
Here is the full article.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that real-estate listings aggregator Zoocasa breached terms of use posted on Century 21’s website by putting the company’s listings on its site. Zoocasa is a real-estate search engine that lets home buyers search according to areas and options they are looking for in a home.
The court said terms of use on a website are legally binding even if there is no opt-in provision for web surfers to indicate they agree to the conditions. Two realestate agents whose listings were posted on Zoocasa were awarded $250 in damages for each copyright infringement.
Charles Bilash, who held copyright to 24 property descriptions and 99 photos posted by Zoocasa, is to receive $30,750 in statutory damages.
Michael James Walton will get $1,250 for five property descriptions.
The court’s finding that proof of agreement to terms of a website isn’t required sets a precedent in Internet law in Canada. But lawyers say it is unlikely to open the floodgates to lawsuits from website owners.
Marko Vesely, a lawyer with Lawson Lundell and counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, said the decision is the first in Canada to uphold the validity of what is known in industry terms as “browse wrap.”
Browse wrap refers to the online terms of use on websites. However, unlike online contracts that require the user to signal acceptance by clicking on something like a “yes” or “agree” button (known as “clickwrap”), there is no provision for proof that the web surfer has seen and agreed to the terms of use.
“What is novel about this case is that it upheld the validity of those terms of use as being a valid contract between this particular user of the website and the owner of the website,” said Vesely.
He said there will be future issues arising out of this ruling for courts to consider, such as whether ordinary Internet users should be held to the same standard as corporate users and whether people can argue there wasn’t sufficient notice of the terms.
Daniel Reid, a lawyer with Harper Grey, whose practice includes defamation, privacy and media law, said the decision is another step forward to the courts beginning to apply existing concepts of law to the Internet.
