Legal processes can become odysseys.

A current example of this is the copyright dispute between the Hamburg music producer Frank Peterson and YouTube.

Since 2008, Peterson has been using the video platform for injunctive relief, disclosure of information and damages.

At that time, videos from the repertoire of the British pop soprano Sarah Brightman had been posted on YouTube, including private concert recordings and music titles, also from the successful album "A Winter Symphony".

The album was produced by Frank Peterson, who had signed an exclusive artist contract with Brightman in the mid-1990s.

A long way to court

Katja Gelinsky

Business correspondent in Berlin

  • Follow I follow

The legal dispute moved from the Hamburg Regional Court to the Hamburg Higher Regional Court and from there to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

In 2018, ten years after the trial began, the case came before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (ECJ).

The top German civil judges wanted to know from the ECJ what EU law says about the liability of platform operators.

The Luxembourg judges responded last summer.

Now it was the BGH's turn again.

On Wednesday, the First Civil Senate pronounced its verdict in the Peterson vs. YouTube case.

At the same time, the judges ruled on six other cases in which publishers, music companies, GEMA and Constantin Film accused the share hosting provider "Uploaded" of copyright infringement.

The BGH upheld the music producer's appeal to the extent that the court of appeal had dismissed his claims for "A Winter Symphony".

But the appeal of YouTube was also successful, insofar as the Court of Appeal had condemned the platform to omission and to provide information about users' e-mail addresses.

In the six proceedings against Uploaded, the Federal Court of Justice granted all appeals by the publishers and creative industries (Az. I ZR 135/18 and others).

It is therefore clear that the service providers are liable for copyright infringements on their platforms under certain conditions.

The BGH describes three constellations.

On the one hand, YouTube & Co. act unlawfully if they do not take appropriate technical precautions to "credibly and effectively combat" copyright infringements.

Reactive measures that make it easier for rightholders to find infringing content afterwards are not sufficient.

Providers are also liable if they do not act "immediately" as soon as rights holders have informed them that protected content has been made accessible unlawfully.

At this point, the BGH changes its case law due to the requirements of the ECJ.

"Here, the liability as a perpetrator now takes the place of the previous liability for the disturbance,"

informs the court.

Third, platform operators are liable for their users' infringing content if they choose a business model "that encourages users to unlawfully make protected content publicly available on this platform".

What follows for Youtube and Uploaded?

But what does this mean for YouTube and Uploaded copyright liability?

The Higher Regional Courts of Hamburg and Munich have to clarify that.

The appeal proceedings are to be reopened there by order of the BGH.

Based on the course of the process so far, it can be expected that new points will be named.

Even after all these years, the BGH still had no findings as to whether YouTube had done enough to prevent copyright infringement on its platform.

In addition, the legal situation has changed in the meantime.

Whether Peterson and the other rights holders have claims against YouTube and Uploaded must be clarified by the courts of appeal, also using the current provisions.

In 2019, the EU reformed the copyright directive.

The German copyright laws were therefore supplemented by a new set of rules in 2021, the Copyright Service Provider Act, UrhDaG for short.

Rights holders should be protected more effectively.

The pitfalls are in the details.

The law offers starting points for new legal disputes – right down to the question of whether it conforms to EU law.

It is quite possible that Peterson's lawsuit against YouTube will take another loop through the ECJ.

This is indicated by statements made by the parties to the dispute.

He waits for YouTube and Google to "immediately refund monies wrongly received and reverse illegal uses," Peterson said.

YouTube said it trusts the systems it has put in place to prevent copyright infringement and is helping "rights owners get their fair share."