A translated decision from a French law court on December 12, 2007 (Court of appeal from Paris, i.e. an important court because of its location, it gets interesting cases to deal with). Google's liability is at stake as it did not remove promptly the litigious posting:
"That it results from all the above that it is by communicating to the appellants, after having issued a writ against them, the evidences proving [i] their rights in the trademarks of BENETTON group, [ii] the fact that no "Angela Brozzi" worked for this group, [iii] the fact that her face appeared on the Internet under another name, [iv] the fact that the pictures reproduced on the litigious blog were those of a catalogue belonging to BENETTON group, [v] the fact that the non-professional editor hiding himself behind the name "Angela Brozzi" requested to young women, by wrongfully claiming a professional reason, pictures showing them in swimsuit or underwear, THAT the respondents provided the justifications which enabled GOOGLE INC to take knowledge of the manifestly illicit nature of the denounced content;
That GOOGLE INC does not deny the fact that the manifestly illicit nature was established and known, since it had these evidences; that, therefore, it should then have acted promptly to withdraw this information or to render it inaccessible, without awaiting the decision of the first judge; "
For the full decision, see http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=1023
And for Canada's view on ISPs' liability, see TechDirt 22 January 2008 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080121/13395424.shtml