Skip to main content
Log in

"Unlawful Content on YouTube"

Decision of the Supreme Court of Austria (Oberster Gerichtshof) 17 September 2021 – Case No. 4 Ob/132/21x

  • Decision • Copyright Law
  • Austria
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 16 May 2023

This article has been updated

  1. 1.

    Although platform operators play an indispensable role in making content posted by users accessible, this alone is not sufficient to assume communication to the public.

  2. 2.

    Rather, other criteria, in particular that of the intentionality of the actions of such an operator, must be taken into account, i.e. it must be examined whether the operator acts “in full knowledge of the consequences of its conduct” in order to provide its customers with access to a protected work.

  3. 3.

    The mere fact that the operator has general knowledge of the infringing availability of protected content on its platform is not sufficient to assume that it acts with the aim of providing internet users with access to this content.

  4. 4.

    The situation is different, however, where the operator, despite having been warned by the rightholder that protected content is being communicated illegally to the public via its platform, refrains from expeditiously taking the measures necessary to make that content inaccessible.

  5. 5.

    The fact that the platform operator acts with the intention of making a profit is irrelevant.

  6. 6.

    The operation of a video platform falls within the scope of Art. 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC (exemption from liability), provided that the operator does not play an active role which gives it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform.

  7. 7.

    It is only excluded from this exemption if it has knowledge of the specific illegal acts committed by its users relating to protected content that was uploaded to its platform. The same criteria as for the examination of communication to the public are applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Change history

Author information

Consortia

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Translated from the German by David Wright.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Art & Allposters International BV v. Stichting Pictoright Copyright Act, Sec. 18(a)(1); Directive 2001/29/EC Arts. 3(1), 14. "Unlawful Content on YouTube". IIC 53, 1403–1408 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01246-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01246-y

Keywords

Navigation