// wiki · analysis · September 2026
Content on the internet: website, domain, platform liability
Lecture material from the professional development course “Digital Law — 2026” (topics 2–3). Rules are stated as of September 2026; assessing a specific situation depends on its circumstances.
The short answer
A website is not one object of rights but a bundle: a composite work and separate elements, each with its own regime and title. By default, the website owner is responsible for what is posted. A platform hosting third-party content escapes liability only if it meets the conditions of art. 1253.1 of the Civil Code — after Constitutional Court ruling No. 39-P, “forwarding the claim to the seller” is no longer enough. The domain itself is not protected: neighbouring rights protect it.
The website as an object of rights
Art. 1260 of the Civil Code protects the website as a composite work — the result of creative effort in selecting and arranging materials; the compiler’s rights arise for whoever created or commissioned the site. Each element is protected separately: texts and photographs, the design layout, program code, the database.
For a dispute, a presumption matters: objects posted on a website are deemed used by its owner unless proven otherwise (Review of judicial practice on copyright and related rights cases on the internet, approved by the Supreme Court Presidium on 29.05.2024, item 15). The burden of explanation is on the owner: author contracts and licences are best kept until the dispute.
Each element has its own regime
- texts, articles, photographs — copyright (art. 1259 of the Civil Code);
- design layout — copyright if original; check the design brief and the assignment of rights;
- program code — a computer program (art. 1261 of the Civil Code); the employer proves the work-for-hire character (art. 1295);
- database — the maker’s related right (art. 1334 of the Civil Code);
- domain name — not a result of intellectual activity and not a means of individualisation.
Domains: rights around, not on the domain
The dispute is decided by neighbouring instruments: a trademark (use of the mark in a domain — art. 1484 of the Civil Code), unfair competition, and for generic zones the UDRP. Recent Court for Intellectual Rights practice:
- Case No. С01-35/2026 — a domain identical to a trademark is in itself an infringement; the registrar is not liable;
- Case No. С01-378/2025 — the domain was registered long before the mark: no bad faith, claim dismissed;
- Case No. С01-752/2026 — annulment of the domain registration and prohibition of its use must not be conflated;
- Case No. С01-1780/2025 — a domain acquired for resale at a price clearly above the usual is bad faith.
Practical rule: register trademarks for key domains before going to market; the domain administrator should be the company itself, not an employee.
The anti-piracy mechanism
Art. 15.6 of Federal Law No. 149-FZ (since 2013): the right holder files an application with the Moscow City Court → the court issues a ruling and interim measures without summoning the respondent → Roskomnadzor adds the page to the register → the provider restricts access. There is no dispute on the merits here — only access to the site.
From 01.05.2022 (Federal Law No. 118-FZ): “mirrors” are blocked by Roskomnadzor without a new court order; aggregators and counterfeit search are covered; advertising on pirate sites is banned; the mechanism extends to trademarks. For a platform this is the risk of the whole site being blocked over one page — respond to claims before the register.
Information intermediaries after Constitutional Court ruling No. 39-P
Art. 1253.1 of the Civil Code: a platform is not liable for third-party content if it simultaneously did not know and should not have known of the infringement and timely took necessary and sufficient measures upon the right holder’s written claim.
Constitutional Court ruling No. 39-P of 16.06.2026 (the “Mir Khobbi” complaint against a marketplace with a counterfeit board game) filled “measures” with content:
- the measure is suspension of the product page upon the right holder’s request until his claim against the seller is resolved, if the rights are shown and the seller has not rebutted them;
- the court may request sales volumes, period and suppliers from the marketplace — to calculate compensation; evasion strips the immunity;
- a repeat infringement by the same seller forecloses the plea of ignorance; the right holder may demand the seller’s blocking;
- a claimant who never went to court or lost compensates the losses caused by the suspension of sales.
The interpretation applies from September 2026.
Four kinds of content disputes
Trademarks. Compensation ranges from 10 thousand to 5 million ₽ per mark (art. 1515 of the Civil Code); use is sought in domains, storefronts, advertising, marketplaces. The Supreme Court’s Economic Collegium (determination of 03.07.2025 No. 304-ЭС25-1782) examined whether a mark appearing only in the site URL without individualising goods is use at all.
Photographs — the most common dispute. The Supreme Court Presidium’s Review of 29.05.2024: posting on the internet does not mean free access (item 7); a licence for a print edition or one site does not cover the others (items 10–11); compensation is measured with regard to the infringing site’s traffic and revenue (item 21); several postings with a single intent are one infringement (item 22); limitation — no more than three years before the claim (item 34). The Supreme Court’s Economic Collegium on 18.08.2026 (No. 303-ЭС26-4459): when claiming twice the value of the use right, the claimant must prove the price of use of that very work.
Databases. Arts. 1334 and 1335.1 of the Civil Code prohibit extraction of a substantial part of a database; in the VKontakte v. Double Data case repeated scraping of publicly available pages was held an infringement — public availability does not lift the ban. For AI datasets an exception will appear only for sovereign and national models and only from 01.03.2027.
Computer programs. Works made for hire (art. 1295 of the Civil Code): the burden of proof is on the employer — a service assignment, purpose, acceptance act (item 104 of Supreme Court Plenum resolution No. 10 of 23.04.2019). In the Vist Group case a clause in the employment contract without an order, assignment and acts gave the employer no rights; in Timjet and NKS the employer won on commit history and correspondence. The nginx story (a $670m deal, a criminal case of 2019–2020, a $750m suit) is the price of an untitled codebase.
AI content. Protection requires human contribution: the Presnensky District Court refused protection to images created by a neural network; the Reface deepfake is protected thanks to editing. More in “Who owns an AI generation”.
Website owner checklist
- a register of elements: for each — source and title;
- assignment agreements with authors and contractors — before publication;
- service assignments and acceptance acts for every work made for hire;
- domains and marks — held by the company; marks registered for key domains;
- a claim route: who receives it, response time, criteria for taking a page down;
- an ad-labelling pipeline and a personal data breach response plan.