Court Rules: Small Platforms Must Proactively Prevent Copyright Infringements

A recent ruling from the Cologne District Court has established that not only large platforms like YouTube and Facebook, but also smaller and medium-sized online platforms, bear responsibility for copyright violations committed by their users. This decision, which has broad implications for the industry, emphasizes the need for effective measures against such infringements.

The case arose when a professional photographer discovered that one of his aerial images had been uploaded without permission to a platform facilitating private flight offers. A pilot had used the image to promote his services. Although the platform operator removed the image following a warning, they refused to issue a legally binding cease-and-desist declaration, claiming that as a mere intermediary, they could not be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users. They argued that implementing proactive measures to monitor uploaded images was neither technically nor economically feasible.

The court, however, disagreed, ruling that the platform had not taken sufficient technical and organizational steps to prevent copyright violations. Consequently, the court classified the platform operator as a "perpetrator" of the copyright infringement. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist, pay damages amounting to EUR200, and cover the legal fees incurred.

This ruling aligns with the evolving jurisprudence from both the European Court of Justice and the Federal Court of Justice in Germany, which have increasingly tightened liability standards for platform operators. The core issue rests on whether a platform plays a neutral, passive role or actively contributes to copyright violations.

The judges in Cologne determined that the platform could not invoke the host-provider privilege, asserting that merely removing the infringing image was inadequate. They indicated that platforms are required to implement credible and effective measures to combat copyright violations.

Moreover, the court noted that the operator was aware of the potential for copyright infringements on their site, as they had included a warning notice during the image upload process. Nonetheless, they failed to take preventive actions. The argument that the small size of the platform made such measures unreasonable was dismissed, with the court referencing feasible technical alternatives like image search functions that could cross-reference uploaded photos with existing works available on the internet.

The ruling also clarified that the Copyright Service Provider Act does not comprehensively regulate liability. General principles of accountability remain applicable if a platform actively contributes to the dissemination of copyrighted content through its business model. An IT law expert remarked that this ruling bolsters the legal recourse available to photographers, artists, and other creators, allowing them to take action against platforms lacking adequate protective mechanisms, rather than waiting for their works to be misused.