Victory for YouTube: Why platforms aren't liable for every upload

A US appeals court in Atlanta has strengthened the liability privileges of online portals with user-generated content. In the case of Athos Overseas Limited v. YouTube, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit specifically clarified the requirements for "safe harbor" protection under US copyright law, consolidating the position of platform operators.

In the legal dispute, Athos, as the rights holder of numerous Mexican and Latin American film classics, accused YouTube of not doing enough to combat illegal copies on the video portal. While the operator did remove content for which Athos submitted takedown requests, the plaintiff argued that YouTube, through these notifications and existing filter technologies like the error-prone Content ID solution, must inevitably be aware of further, similar copyright infringements.

The court rejected this argument in its ruling published on January 7th and confirmed that YouTube continues to enjoy the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (Case No.: 23-13156). The decision primarily revolves around the protection status that shields platforms from damages as long as they act promptly after becoming aware of an infringement.

No general monitoring obligation

Athos attempted to prove that YouTube either had actual knowledge of the infringements or should have recognized warning signs. The filter tools were particularly scrutinized: Athos claimed that the Google subsidiary could automatically identify all copies of a film by matching digital fingerprints (hashes) and therefore had to delete them even without an explicit request.

The appellate court did not follow this view and stated that the mere existence of filter technologies does not establish a general monitoring obligation. YouTube convincingly argued that tools like Content ID cannot automatically determine the legality of a video. A technical match does not necessarily constitute a copyright infringement. According to the court ruling, exceptions such as the right to quote or licenses might apply, requiring a legal review. Since YouTube cannot perform such individual legal assessments for millions of uploads, rights holders must continue to report specific infringements.

Furthermore, the court clarified that knowledge of specific infringements must exist to lose liability protection. A vague, general awareness that copyrighted content is also shared on a platform without permission is not sufficient to hold the operator liable. Thus, according to the specialist blog The IPKat, the balance intended by the US legislator with the DMCA is maintained: Platforms should be able to offer innovative services without their existence being threatened by immense costs for comprehensive pre-screening.

EU legal situation leads to upload filters

For rights holders, the message is that they still have to play the "whack-a-mole game" – the tedious task of reporting every single copy – in the US, unless they use the management tools offered by the platforms. Athos had rejected the use of Content ID due to the terms and conditions and instead commissioned a law firm for manual searches. The judges emphasize that such an approach cannot shift the burden of proof for alleged platform inaction to the operator.

In the EU, the legal situation is stricter. While YouTube in the US primarily has to react after a specific notification under the DMCA ("Notice-and-Takedown"), the EU Copyright Directive provides for more direct responsibility. In principle, large platforms are therefore legally considered "users" of the content themselves.

They are thus generally obliged to acquire licenses for the uploaded works. If they cannot provide them, they are generally liable for copyright infringements. Exception: They can prove "best efforts" to prevent the availability of protected content. In practice, this almost inevitably leads to the use of upload filters in the EU. Operators want to proactively prevent works that have already been reported from being uploaded again.

(mma)