Unjustified IP warning: What to do with strikes on social media?

Content creators on platforms such as Instagram, YouTube or Twitch are increasingly confronted with legal challenges that go far beyond their actual creative work. While creating appealing content, managing the community and continuously searching for innovative topics is a full-time job in itself, creators also have to deal with a maze of legal pitfalls.

Unjustified IP warnings are particularly problematic and potentially threaten the existence of a company. These can severely disrupt or, in the worst case, even destroy a creator’s business, which has often been painstakingly built up over many years. The consequences range from temporary account suspensions and loss of monetization to lasting reputational damage.

In view of this threatening situation, many creators are faced with pressing questions: How should one react to such unjustified warnings? What rights can you assert as a content creator? And how can you protect your own business preventively against such attacks?

A recent ruling by the Regional Court of Cologne has once again brought this issue to the forefront of public attention. It not only provides an opportunity to take a closer look at the topic, but also provides important points of reference for the legal handling of unjustified IP warnings. It is essential for creators to understand the implications of this ruling and integrate it into their business strategy.

What’s behind it?

Unjustified property right warnings are issued when someone falsely claims that certain content infringes their property rights. These can be alleged copyright infringements, trademark infringements or other forms of intellectual property. This often results in strikes or content takedowns on the platforms. In many cases, this is due to misunderstandings or overzealous rights holders, but sometimes malicious intentions are behind it.

Consequences for Creator

The effects can be serious:

– The account is temporarily blocked, resulting in a loss of important revenue. This can threaten the existence of full-time creators in particular, as the monetization of their content is often their main source of income. Even short blocking periods can mean considerable financial losses.

– The reach suffers sustainably from the strike. Platform algorithms react sensitively to strikes and can limit the visibility of content in the long term. This leads to a vicious circle of lower reach, fewer interactions and falling revenue.

– The relationship of trust that has been painstakingly built up with the community is damaged. Followers and subscribers often react insecurely to strikes and content deletions. In the worst case, they turn away because they question the reliability of the creator.

What can you do?

When striking on a social media platform, content creators should consider the following steps:

1. stay calm and analyze the situation carefully. It is important to keep a cool head and not panic. A thorough analysis of the situation helps to plan the next steps carefully and avoid hasty reactions.

2. carefully check the justification for the strike. Strikes are often based on misunderstandings or false assumptions. A precise review of the alleged infringement is essential in order to strengthen your own position and develop possible counterarguments.

3. collect evidence for the legality of your own content. The better your own position is documented, the easier it is to defend yourself against unjustified accusations. Evidence of the independent creation of content can also be helpful in proving that the strike is unfounded.

4. submit a substantiated objection to the platform. Most platforms offer mechanisms for appeals. A well-founded, factual objection often has a good chance of success. It is important to include all relevant information and evidence and to make your arguments clear and comprehensible.

5. consult a specialized lawyer in the event of repeated incidents. An experienced lawyer in the field of media law can not only help with the defense against unjustified strikes, but also provide preventive advice to avoid future problems.

Speaking of which, the Regional Court of Cologne has just ruled on unjustified copyright warnings. In a ruling dated 9 January 2025 (case no. 14 O 387/24), the court clarified that an unjustified copyright complaint against a streaming platform (so-called copyright strike) with the aim of blocking the content constitutes an unlawful interference with the established and exercised business operations of the actually authorized author. The court transferred the case law of the Federal Court of Justice on unjustified copyright warnings to unjustified copyright complaints against platforms. It emphasized that the affected author can demand that the submitter of the unjustified copyright complaint cease and desist from this conduct. This ruling considerably strengthens the position of creators vis-à-vis labels and platforms.

How to protect yourself?

It is advisable to avoid strikes from the outset:

– Only use your own content or acquire licenses correctly. This significantly minimizes the risk of copyright infringements. When using third-party content, it is important to obtain the necessary rights and to document this.

– Know the right to quote and apply it correctly. The right to quote allows the use of third-party content in certain contexts. However, it is important to know and adhere to the limits of quotation law. It is essential to cite the source correctly.

– Always document sources carefully. Good documentation of the sources used not only helps in the defense against unjustified strikes, but also increases credibility vis-à-vis the community. It also makes it easier to trace your own work.

Conclusion

With this ruling, the Regional Court of Cologne has made an important decision in the area of copyright law and the protection of artists in the digital age. The key points can be summarized as follows:

1. Unjustified copyright complaints (“copyright strikes”) against streaming platforms constitute an unlawful interference with the established and exercised business operations of the actually authorized author.
2. The case law on unjustified copyright warnings is transferable to unjustified copyright complaints against platforms.
3. Affected authors can demand an injunction from the submitter of the unjustified copyright complaint.
4. In such cases, the local jurisdiction lies at any place where the work concerned could have been played without the blocking.
5. There is a risk of repetition if no cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause is submitted.

This decision strengthens the position of artists against unauthorized interference with their exploitation rights and shows the adaptation of the law to the challenges of digital music exploitation.