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