On-demand transmission right in the digital space: streaming, Section 19a UrhG and licensing

Brief overview: The on-demand transmission right has been used for years as a term to describe the on-demand transmission of works on the internet. Dogmatically, it is not codified as a separate exploitation right in German law. In practice, on-demand streaming is predominantly assigned to the right of making available to the public(Section 19a UrhG, implementation of Art. 3 para. 1 InfoSoc Directive ). Reproduction rights (buffering, caching) and ancillary copyrights also apply. For providers, this means that license packages for streaming must be considered in several layers – depending on the type of work, rights chain, live or on-demand model, territories and technical modalities.

Dogmatics: “Retrieval transfer” versus making available to the public (Section 19a UrhG)

Conceptual image. “On-demand transmission” refers to the user-specific transmission of a work from the server to the end device (“on demand”). The term originates from the literature on the convergence of broadcasting (Section 20 UrhG) and making available to the public (Section 19a UrhG). It refers to transmission beyond mere provision on a server.

Codification and the prevailing view. The Copyright Act does not recognize an independent “on-demand transmission right”. The regulatory anchor for streaming-on-demand is Section 19a UrhG: making available to the public exists if the work is made available to members of the public from places and at times of their choice. The ECJ case law on Art. 3 para. 1 InfoSoc Directive abstracts the process of “communication to the public” in a technology-neutral sense. From a practical point of view, it is therefore not only the “placing on the server” that counts, but also the possibility of individual retrieval that this opens up.

Opposing view in the literature. There is debate as to whether the data transfer itself (the “last step” from the server to the user) constitutes an independent exploitation right – with arguments on license enforcement (control of delivery, territorial issues, sanction logic). However, the prevailing opinion assigns provision and retrieval uniformly to Section 19a UrhG; a separate “retrieval transfer right” is not required. The decisive factor remains: On-demand provision triggers Section 19a; live transmission is regularly assigned to Section 20 UrhG (broadcasting right).

Differentiation from § 20 UrhG (sending).

• Broadcasting right (Section 20 UrhG): simultaneous linear transmission to many (broadcast, webcast/livestream without individual choice of playback time).
• § Section 19a UrhG: individual availability at any time (media library, video/audio-on-demand, social media library).
  Hybrid forms (simulcast + media library) must be licensed with mixed rights.

Which rights streaming actually uses: Copyright and ancillary copyrights in a package

Copyright level.

• Making available to the public (Section 19a UrhG) – core right for on-demand use.
• Reproduction (§ 16 UrhG) – server copies, CDN copies, transcodings, thumbnails, buffering.
• Temporary reproduction (Section 44a UrhG) – technical, ephemeral copies without independent economic significance; only applies in the context of lawful use.
• Editing/remodeling (§ 23 UrhG) – re-edits, mashups, clips.
• Limitations (e.g. quotation § 51, parody/pastiche § 51a UrhG) – relevant in practice for UGC platforms.

Ancillary copyrights (selection).

• §§ Sections 73 ff., 77 UrhG (performers: recording, on-demand use).
• § Section 85 UrhG (producers of sound recordings: reproduction, making available to the public).
• § 94, § 94a UrhG (film producers’/press publishers’ rights).
• § Section 87 UrhG (broadcasting organizations).

Collecting-Societies-Practice.

• Musical works (minor rights): regularly GEMA (making available to the public/streaming, depending on the constellation on-top individual rights clearance requirements).
• Performance protection (sound recordings): GVL / Label licenses.
• Film works: generally direct license with rights holders/producers; music shares additionally.
• Live vs. on-demand: Live stream often requires broadcasting rights + GEMA; permanent provision as Section 19a requires additional rights.

Technical copies and end users: Section 44a, Section 53 UrhG and the distinction between lawful/unlawful sources

Temporary copies (§ 44a UrhG). Streaming creates ephemeral copies on servers, in transcoding pipelines, CDNs and on end devices (RAM, buffers). § Section 44a only privileges these if the copies are temporary, transient or incidental, an integral part of a technical process and have no independent economic significance and the act of use is lawful.

Private copy (§ 53 UrhG). Private copying from an obviously illegal source is not permitted for end users. At EU level, case law has clarified that streaming from manifestly unlawful sources is neither covered by Art. 5 para. 1 InfoSoc (temporary technical copies) nor by national private copying rules. For platforms, this means: due diligence obligations to prevent illegal source access (DSA processes, hash/URL blacklists, “trusted notifier” mechanisms).

Practical consequences. Providers of lawful streaming services may price in Section 44a and do not have to license every technical copy. On the other hand, those who rely on illegal sources cannot invoke Section 44a; end users risk infringements and warnings. Rights holders can take action against intermediaries (hardware/software sellers, add-on platforms) if they deliberately promote access to illegal streams.

Live streaming, webcasting, simulcast: Interfaces between Section 20 and Section 19a UrhG

Live broadcasts. Classic live streaming without a subsequent on-demand function is a broadcasting right (Section 20 UrhG). As soon as a livestream goes online at the same time and remains available in a media library, both rights are used: broadcasting for the live phase, Section 19a for the on-demand phase.

Web radio/Internet radio. Linear stream = Section 20; broadcast architecture and integration of works (music) require broadcasting and ancillary copyrights; playlist archive or “track replay” falls under Section 19a.

Simulcast/Gap-Fill. TV signal or event stream is broadcast simultaneously via the Internet (simulcast) and then made available as a catch-up. Contracts: Dual licensing (broadcasting rights + making available to the public), clear time slots, geo-blocking, DRM.

In short: Live and on-demand models must be structured separately under licensing law, even if they technically merge into one platform.

Territories, rights chains and platform contracts: From rights clearance to technical implementation

Territorial principle online. There is no general country of origin principle for pure on-demand services; licensing is territorial. There are only deviations in special regimes (e.g. Directive (EU) 2019/789 for online services of broadcasting organizations, “ancillary online services”). International streaming projects must align rights portfolios (works, services) and territorial rights at an early stage; geo-blocking and rights enforcement (IP range control, payment gateways, app store territories) must be technically enforceable.

Chains of rights. Contracts with authors, performers, producers and labels must be clearly defined: Type of use (on-demand streaming, download, clip use, trailer), end devices, interactivity, territories, term, time window, exclusivity, rev-share. Important: Purpose transfer doctrine (Section 31 (5) UrhG) – unclear clauses are interpreted narrowly. Remix/edit clauses and moral rights must be observed for AI-supported adaptations.

Platform contracts (UGC & Pro-Publisher).

• UGC platform: general terms and conditions of rights ownership, exemptions, notice-and-action processes (DSA), UrhDaG mechanics (presumably permitted, § 9-§ 12), remuneration, advertising monetization, blocking/removal grounds, resistance to overblocking.
• Pro-Publisher: Guarantees for clearance, DRM, CMTA (Content ID/Matching), reporting, netting/chargebacks, audit rights.

Technical enforcement. DRM, token gates, forensic watermarking and fingerprinting are no substitute for rights, but they are compliance tools (proof, abuse mitigation). Logs and provenance data provide evidence.

Streaming product design: thinking right from the first architectural decision

Content pipeline. Already in the MVP phase, usage types (“live only”, “live + catch-up”, “pure VoD catalog”), territories, availability windows and in-app features (clipping, download-to-go, offline cache) must be defined – with a direct influence on license requirements. Download-to-go regularly leaves § 44a and requires reproduction rights for permanent copies.

User functions. Clips, GIF export, audiograms, snippets or screen recordings quickly exceed the contractually permitted use. The default should be “Narrow Rights”: clip functions only for own content, re-uploads with automatic rights check, opt-ins for rights holders.

AI features. Automatic transcription, chaptering, translation or dubbing create adaptations (§ 23 UrhG) and use ancillary copyrights. Training/finetuning on user material requires separate permissions (no tacit train permission). Exclusions (no-training flags) and earmarking must be contractually stipulated.

Compliance checklist for 2025: properly securing streaming rights

1. Inventory of works/performances: music, image, film, text, logos, performances, archive footage.
2. Types of use: Live (§ 20), on-demand (§ 19a), download (§ 16), clips/re-edits (§ 23).
3. Territories & windows: geo-blocking, time windows, exclusivity.
4. Collecting societies: GEMA (minor rights), GVL/Label, other collecting societies; individual clearances for major rights / film.
5. Technology copies: document § 44a suitability; license off-device caches separately.
6. UGC governance: UrhDaG workflows (presumably permitted, de minimis limits), complaints (Section 14 UrhDaG), DSA notice and action.
7. Contractual safeguards: Rights chain guarantees, exemptions, audit/reporting clauses, DRM/watermarking obligations, take-down SLA.
8. Evidence/logging: upload/streaming logs, fingerprints, timestamps, legal hold in the event of a dispute.
9. AI use: no implied training permission; contractually map data and model governance.
10. Privacy by design: minimize telemetry; implement legal bases (GDPR), Art. 25 integratively.

Disputes and case law: what to consider when providing advice

Hyperlinks/Embeds. The line of EU case law on “communication to the public” distinguishes between new audience/technical modality:

• Hyperlinks to freely accessible, lawfully published content are generally permissible; this is not the case with obviously illegal sources or circumvention of access barriers.
• Embedding/framing may constitute a new communication to the public, depending on the degree of circumvention.
• Streaming boxes/add-ons that systematically lead to illegal sources establish communication to the public of the providers; end users leave the protected areas of temporary copies.

Platform liability. For pure hosting/sharing platforms, special UrhDaG rules apply in Germany (filtering, presumed permitted, complaint). Online marketplaces without a focus on content sharing must be examined differently under copyright law; liability depends on attribution and diligence. DSA supplements the liability picture procedurally (reporting channels, transparency, audits).

Practical conflicts.

• Music in game streams: bundle of rights consisting of works and ancillary copyrights; in-game music is not automatically “free”.
• Fan edits/AMVs: Typically § 23-relevant; restrictions § 51/§ 51a apply narrowly.
• Archive footage: often broken chains; licensing time/area-specific, often residual rights with third parties.

Result: “On-demand transfer right” as working title – Section 19a UrhG plus accompanying rights remain decisive

The term “on-demand transmission right” is helpful for legal advice in order to precisely address on-demand transmissions. Legally, however, the use case is covered by Section 19a UrhG in conjunction with Section 16, Section 44a and the ancillary copyrights. The main levers for advice lie in (1) clear license architecture, (2) technical enforcement (DRM, fingerprinting, geo-blocking), (3) DSA/UrhDaG processes against over- and underblocking and (4) clean contract design for AI functions, clips and international territory portfolios.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.