Continuing the threads of the topic discussed previously, we also place the Website in the Copyright regulations. As we all know, a website is a work managed by a person who creates and organizes it as he wishes. From the structure of the site, to the registration of the domain name, to the choice of contents. It is precisely the contents that interest the topic we want to address. What changes if the manager of the Website creates or organizes the creation of the contents together with his staff or, otherwise, entrusts the creation of the same to users of the Internet? In the first case we will have authors of texts to whom full ownership of the works will be attributed and therefore we will recognize copyright rights in the hands of the coordinator of the work or the owners of the individual works. Without forgetting the rights of each creator of the work on the individual parts of the work itself. In the second case, however, the contents are created and uploaded by users who access the site. This is User Generated content (UGC), in which users can create texts, copy and share images and upload any type of video. In this case, despite the great resource that these tools have brought (the reference goes, in particular, to the social phenomenon of penetration into daily life and its evolution process) the management of copyright is more complex.

There are two problems that emerge: who owns the copyright in the materials Paraguay Phone Number uploaded to the Site; how the management of copyright on content uploaded to the Website but coming from third parties is regulated. To better understand the first problem we can take the social networks Flickr and Facebook as an example. Flickr places ownership of the photos uploaded on individual users. Facebook, on the other hand, has provided that for the materials published the user provides a non-exclusive and transferable license that allows the use of any content published on the Social Network. As you can see, the structure and management of copyright of the two different social networks is different. The second problem mentioned above is of different importance and could give rise to legal repercussions on the management of the UGC site. A court case that allows us to better understand what has been stated is " Viacom vs YouTube ", for those interested. Precisely to make users aware of the rules that regulate copyright on their Website, it is important to indicate the Disclaimer. However, the non-presence of the wording does not allow you to copy the texts or other material present on the Site, the exclusive copyright remains with the owner.



Always keeping in mind that the personal use of the contents present on a Website is reserved. To create a website, what contents can we copy? Texts, images, sounds? As if they were books, the texts published online are protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced and distributed without authorization, despite the practice of copy-paste dominating the internet. As regards blogs, the personal diaries of users, it is not easy to identify the ownership of the copyright. This is because the works created cannot easily be traced back to the real author of the same, on the one hand since it is not certain who the person who really created the texts is and on the other, because the disclaimer of the site hosting the blog traces the contents in the full ownership of the site manager and not of the author. What should we do if we want to copy graphic elements, images or sounds? In such circumstances, unless the owner of the site has explicitly written that photos, graphics or sounds can be freely copied, it will not be possible to make even one copy. The fact that there is no real and specific regulation of copyright on websites leads us to consider the content of a site to be the exclusive property and therefore to attribute the ownership of the works to the owner.