The Intellectual Property Rights Court of the Russian Federation considered a case of illegal use of a photograph on the defendant's website in cassation proceedings and ruled in favour of the owner to recover compensation.

The defendant tried to prove its non-involvement in the placement of the photographic works, referring to the fact that it was only an information intermediary and had nothing to do with the content on its website and was not responsible for what was published on it. In its view, its activities were exclusively related to enabling third parties to post content.

However, the IP Court did not take into account the arguments in favour of protecting the defendant's rights, stating that the mere indication in the user agreement of the posting of content by others does not prove the defendant's lack of involvement in the offence committed.

The Court explained that the question of whether a person is an information intermediary is determined by the nature of his activities. The onus is on the owner of the website to prove that the material was posted by third parties. If the owner cannot provide proof, he is deemed to have been involved in the infringement.

The defendant also tried to challenge the screenshots submitted by the plaintiff, claiming that they were unreliable. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that screenshots are admissible evidence if they show the address of the Internet page and the exact time of its receipt.

Thus, the Intellectual Rights Court concluded that the website owner was involved in activities related to the illegal use of the photo and ruled in favour of the plaintiff.