comprendre la participation au crowdsourcing d’activités...
TRANSCRIPT
Eric Favreau
Head of Legal - eYeka
Yannig Roth
Marketing Manager - eYeka
1
2
BUSINESS BRIEF
COMMUNITY BRIEF
OPEN COMPETITION
MODERATION,
& ANALYSIS
WINNER SELECTION,
IP TRANSFER
1
2
3
4
5
3
DESIGN POINT OF SALE COMMUNICATION INSIGHTS VIDEOS INNOVATION
4
C R O W D S O U R C I N G
“Obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting
contributions from a large group of people, and especially from
an online community, rather than from traditional employees or
suppliers.”
I N D U S T R I A L I Z E D C R O W D S O U R C I N G
“Enterprise adoption of the power of the crowd allows
specialized skills to be dynamically sourced from anyone,
anywhere, and only as needed. Companies can use the
collective knowledge of the masses to help with tasks from data
entry and coding to advanced analytics and product
development. The potential for disruptive impact on cost alone
likely makes early experimentation worthwhile, but there are
also broader implications for innovation in the enterprise.”
5
6
7
“Crowdsourcing is
like discount sushi.
While competition is
good, crowdsourcing
can also hurt
designers because of
the increased
opportunities to take
advantage of creative
talent.”
Scott Belsky, on The Next Web
Is crowdsourcing in a grey area of law? No specific regulation (unlike crowdfunding)
No major legal case
Crowdsourcing is at the crossroad of several legal specialties (Favreau, 2014) Consumer law (participants are not professionals)
Privacy law (disclosure of personal data)
Labor law (work relationship between participants and sponsors)
Intellectual Property (transfer of rights on the submissions)
8
9
10
Context: Creative crowdsourcing also stirs up controversy #Travailgratuit movement
Autonomy is the main criteria to distinguish independent work and employment work (Favreau, Roth & Lemoine, 2014)
Risk to see an independent worker’s contract redefined as an employment contract in order for the worker to benefit the employee’s status Minimum wage, working time, termination
fees…
11
Employment contract needs three cumulative elements: Work is executed
Monetary compensation
Subordination
Relationship of subordination needs three cumulative elements: Management power
Disciplinary power
Supervision power
Lawsuits in the USA against micro-task platforms Crowdflower
Yelp
12
eYeka runs open contests with independent creators Limited risk to get a lawsuit for labor law violation
Community is free to participate or not
No subordination
No control over process of creation
Freedom is key to creativity
What about creative Crowdsourcing?
Rules of participation Relative autonomy
Click-wrap contract
Accepted by all participants
Defines: • Dates, prizes • Content guidelines • Terms of use of entries • Warranty: creators warrant
that the company will quietly enjoy and exercise the rights attached to the entries
New type of contests: eYeka‘s Content Production Limited autonomy of the creators
Special remuneration for the execution of the work
Supervision and management by eYeka during the making of videos
No “free work”
Stage-based contests, pitching of ideas (Roth & Kimani, 2014)
16
Transfer of Intellectual Property: Copyrights
• Companies use crowdsourcing as an alternative way of gaining rights on creative content
• Selected winners transfer their IP rights to the company, getting a compensation (non-winners keep their IP rights)
Use of the selected entries
• Company gets exclusivity : the winning creator can’t sell the submission to a competitor
• Selected submissions can be used as a whole and their elements (incl. logos, characters, slogans, titles…), for the creation of derivative works by the company or its agency (using elements from the original submission: screenplay, characters, dialogues, organization of the elements, layout, texts…)
• For the maximum legal duration of protection of the IP rights and for worldwide use.
• For all types of use, including:
• Market research, Generation of insights
• External communication, Advertisement, Point of sales
• Create, market, distribute products reproducing the work
• Right to file and gain new rights, file trademarks, File designs
Assignment Agreement Signed by the selected participants
Confirmation of the obligations set forth in the Rules
Proper contract allows good information of creator and stronger binding effect than online contract
Contractual obligations similar to professional standards (warranty, confidentiality)
Depending on the type of contests, participants are allowed to use third party elements (as long as they provide information and relevant license) OR are required to provide 100% original content
Crowdsourcing creators are often non-professionals who include pre-existing elements in their works
Infringement Notice Legal Information
Securing the transaction
Securing the transaction
Creators can be required to provide documents to secure the transaction as a condition of the prize grant:
Model authorization
Proof of id
If creator has used copyrighted elements
If creator is a minor
22
Autonomy is a key element to compare crowdsourcing and employment work
The legal framework of crowdsourcing is based on standard legal rules of IP
Management of IP must adjust to the non-professional status of participants
23
24
Thank you for your attention
Articles & books Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Favreau, E. (2014). Rôle et responsabilité des acteurs du crowdsourcing. Revue Lamy
Droit de L’immatériel, (106), 62–66. Favreau, E., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2014). Travail ou pas? L’autonomie des
participants au crowdsourcing et ses implications. In 7èmes journées d’études TIC.IS. Alès (France).
Felstiner, A. (2011). Working the Crowd: Employment and Labor Law in the Crowdsourcing Industry. Berkeley Journal Of Employment & Labor Law, 32(1), 143–204.
Kuehn, K., & Corrigan, T. F. (2013). Hope Labor: The Role of Employment Prospects in Online Social Production. The Political Economy of Communication, 1(1), 9–25.
Lebraty, J.-F., & Lobre-Lebraty, K. (2013). Crowdsourcing (p. 144). London: ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Links http://news.eyeka.net/tag/legal/ https://en.eyeka.com/resources/webinars#legal
25
Jean-François Lemoine
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
ESSCA Ecole de Management
Yannig Roth
eYeka
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Eric Favreau
eYeka
Abstract:
This article looks at an aspect which is often mentioned – but rarely treated – of crowdsourcing: its legal implications. Based on existing
typologies from information and management science, we describe the different forms that crowdsourcing takes today, before focusing on the
concept of autonomy to present the opportunities and risks that companies may face turning to the crowd. We then discuss our findings
and suggest feature research directions.
Keywords:
crowdsourcing, typology, autonomy,
legal, labor
26
Jean-François Lemoine
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
ESSCA Ecole de Management
Yannig Roth
eYeka
Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
Eric Favreau
eYeka
Résumé :
Cet article propose d’aborder un aspect souvent mentionné mais rarement traité du crowdsourcing : les enjeux juridiques. En nous basant
sur les typologies existantes en sciences de gestion et de l’information, nous décrivons les différentes formes que prend le crowdsourcing
aujourd’hui, puis nous nous concentrons sur le concept d’autonomie pour présenter les opportunités et les risques que les entreprises
peuvent rencontrer en utilisant la foule. Nous discutons ensuite nos résultats et présentons les voies futures de recherche.
Mots-clés :
crowdsourcing, typologie, autonomie,
juridique, travail
Travail ou pas? L’autonomie des participants au crowdsourcing et ses
implications juridiques
27