{"id":5369,"date":"2015-07-07T05:03:11","date_gmt":"2015-07-07T05:03:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/skylight.gr\/administrator_wordpress\/index.php\/2015\/07\/07\/hamburg-higher-regional-court-confirms-youtube-is-liable-for-copyright-infringements\/"},"modified":"2015-07-07T05:03:11","modified_gmt":"2015-07-07T05:03:11","slug":"hamburg-higher-regional-court-confirms-youtube-is-liable-for-copyright-infringements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/2015\/07\/07\/hamburg-higher-regional-court-confirms-youtube-is-liable-for-copyright-infringements\/","title":{"rendered":"Hamburg Higher Regional Court Confirms Youtube Is Liable For Copyright Infringements"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span class=\"normal\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/0\/06\/YouTube_logo_2013.svg\/1000px-YouTube_logo_2013.svg.png\" border=\"0\" width=\"218\" height=\"91\" \/><br \/>Hamburg Higher Regional Court ruled that YouTube is  liable as an &#8216;interferer&#8217; (St\u00f6rer) for content made available on its  platform by third parties. The fundamental responsibility of YouTube via  the principle of &#8216;interferer liability&#8217; (St\u00f6rerhaftung) was therefore  confirmed by the appeal court. If YouTube receives notice of copyright  infringements, the Google subsidiary must take appropriate measures to  ensure that these copyright protected works on its platform are no  longer accessible in Germany. In another case, Munich I Regional Court  rejected an action for damages by GEMA. According to these rulings,  within the present legal framework YouTube is currently not financially  accountable for the use of copyright protected works on its platform.  <!--more-->  <\/p>\n<p> Hamburg Higher Regional Court endorsed the opinion of the lower court,  Hamburg Regional Court, and confirmed YouTube&#8217;s interferer liability.  &#8220;The Higher Regional Court&#8217;s ruling shows that YouTube cannot evade  responsibility for copyright infringements and cannot shift  responsibility for monitoring infringements of rights on to the  copyright holders&#8221;, said GEMA&#8217;s CEO Dr. Harald Heker. The ruling is an  important signal for the approx. 70,000 members of GEMA, on whose behalf  the collective management organisation is fighting for adequate  remuneration. The Higher Regional Court&#8217;s decision is not yet final.<\/p>\n<p> The concept of interferer liability is to be understood as liability for  infringements of rights arising from acts of contribution with  causative effect and violations of control and monitoring obligations.  The responsibility of the Google subsidiary via the principle of  interferer liability was already established back in April 2012 by  Hamburg Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court has confirmed the  decision of the lower court and stated in its oral presentation of the  judgment that as an interferer, YouTube must comply with far-reaching  control obligations in relation to notified infringements of rights. In  particular the Content ID process and the use of word filters are  considered by the Higher Regional Court to be appropriate verification  duties. However, it is not sufficient for YouTube to simply refer the  rights holders to its Content ID program. Instead YouTube apply this  system itself. It follows from the two judgments that although YouTube  is responsible for preventing infringements of rights, this does not,  however, result in a duty to pay reasonable compensation to the  copyright holders.<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;The Higher Regional court judges correctly indicated in the oral  presentation of the judgment that in the area of music videos in  particular, YouTube has moved structurally further and further away from  being a mere host provider&#8221;, said GEMA&#8217;s General Counsel Dr. Tobias  Holzm\u00fcller. &#8220;Unfortunately, due to the present legal framework, the  Higher Regional Court, and Munich Regional Court too, could not see  their way to recognizing liability on the part of YouTube as the  perpetrator of the infringing acts itself (T\u00e4terhaftung), with a  resulting liability to pay damages.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p> The background to the dispute is the claim by GEMA that authors of  musical works should be paid an adequate compensation for the use of  their copyright protected material on the YouTube platform. In the last  years, YouTube has paid GEMA no royalties at all for using music on its  online video platform, although it generates enormous advertising income  from the music. For GEMA, responsibility clearly lies with YouTube:  &#8220;Confirmation of interferer liability by the appeal court once again  underlines the fact that online services have a responsibility when they  rely on business models without proper licensing of the necessary  rights&#8221;, declared Thomas Theune, GEMA&#8217;s Director of Broadcasting and  Online.<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;However, as YouTube earns substantial revenue through the commercial  exploitation of music works, it is our goal to finally get YouTube to  pay adequate compensation for the use of our members&#8217; works, in the same  way as other music services on the market do. This is the only way of  ensuring that in the digital age, creative people are able to make a  living from their creative activities.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"normal\">Source: GEMA<\/p>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hamburg Higher Regional Court ruled that YouTube is liable as an &#8216;interferer&#8217; (St\u00f6rer) for content&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-music-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skylight.gr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}