YouTube is only liable for infringements if there is a clear indication of infringement

Introduction:

Content Hide

1. Introduction:

1.1. Main part:

1.2. The case:

2. The court decision:

2.1. Urgency and litigation:

2.2. Burden of proof and concretization:

2.3. Other considerations:

2.4. Conclusion:

In a landmark decision, the Hamburg Higher Regional Court has specified the requirements for YouTube’s liability for copyright infringement. This blog post highlights the key aspects of the ruling and explains under which conditions YouTube can be held liable for illegal uploads.

Key Facts

Hamburg Higher Regional Court clarifies YouTube 's liability for copyright infringements.
Uploading music without permission led to a warning letter from the rights holder.
YouTube is only obliged to check if there are clear indications of legal infringements.
There was no urgency, as the applicant had been inactive for over three years.
The burden of proof for communication to the public lies with the applicant.
Ruling has far-reaching implications for dealing with copyright infringements.
Rights holders must provide detailed information in order to trigger liability.

Main part:

The case:

A YouTube user had uploaded music from a copyrighted album without permission from the rights holder. The rights holder asked YouTube to block all similar content and reveal information about the uploader. YouTube refused, as there is no general obligation to check and the warning contained inaccurate information.

The court decision:

Both the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg stated that YouTube is only obligated to review if there is a clear indication of a specific infringement. A general warning is not sufficient. The rights holder must inform YouTube precisely about the offending upload in order to trigger a duty to verify.

Urgency and litigation:

The court pointed out that the required urgency was lacking in the present case. The applicant had not shown any procedural activity for over three years. This undermines urgency and prevents the applicant from getting the order they want.

Burden of proof and concretization:

The court also emphasized that the burden of proof for the existence of a communication to the public and a breach of duty lies with the applicant. The notice must be specific enough to allow YouTube to determine the illegality without a detailed examination.

Other considerations:

This ruling could have far-reaching implications for the way platforms like YouTube deal with copyright infringement. It raises the bar on liability and protects platforms from unwarranted claims. At the same time, it gives rights holders a clear guideline on how to enforce their rights.

Conclusion:

The ruling by the Hamburg Higher Regional Court is an important step towards clarifying the liability conditions for platforms such as YouTube. It clarifies that general or vague warnings are not sufficient. Rights holders must provide accurate and detailed information to trigger platform liability. In addition, they must expedite the process to maintain urgency. The ruling strengthens YouTube’s position and provides clear guidance for rights holders.

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.