German indies sue YouTube

In a case that might have parallels to the ongoing Viacom v YouTube case in the US, a group of German labels, publishers and artists have launched legal proceedings against the Google-owned video website accusing them of copyright infringement. As much previously reported, while everyone knows punters frequently post copyright infringing content onto YouTube, the video site has a policy of taking said content down as soon as it is made aware of it by the copyright owner. There is, however, some debate as to whether or not that is sufficient to stop YouTube from being liable for infringement for hosting the offending content between upload and takedown. Some content owners also object to the fact that the takedown system puts the onus on them to monitor YouTube for any infringement of their content. Those issues have only led to litigation in a handful of cases, mainly because YouTube is normally quick to enter into some sort of licensing agreement with any content owners looking litigious. Meanwhile, the video service has been honing its content recognition technology that, in theory, stopped infringing content from going live in the first place. The most high profile litigation to date is that being pursued through the US courts by MTV owners Viacom, which is ongoing. Yesterday Hamburg-based lawyer Jens Schippmann announced he was suing YouTube on behalf of 25 German based or linked artists and labels, perhaps most notably musical type Sarah Brightman, who often collaborates with German producer Frank Peterson. According to Billboard, Schippmann's legal papers claim that there is "clear evidence" that YouTube and Google "have been distributing so-called user-generated content without any permission of the copyright holders and the master owners". The papers add that "in addition, they have not pay any royalties since 1 Apr 2009", a reference to the falling out between YouTube and German publishing collecting society GEMA, a turn of events that means artists like Brightman, whose content is appearing without permission, aren't even generating publishing royalties (though one would assume that eventually GEMA will reach a deal with Google, like their UK counterparts PRS did, and royalties for the period of the dispute would then be paid). Of course, technically speaking, since the falling out with GEMA all 'premium music content' should have been blocked on YouTube, at the video site's demand, though these things are hard to police when fans are constantly uploading new ripped off content. Needless to say, Google have denied liability, stressing their takedown policy and their investment in new technology to ease the content owner's workload in monitoring infringing content. A spokesman for the company in Germany told Billboard: "YouTube works closely with many thousands of copyright holders worldwide to make sure that they can manage their rights on our video platform. Our state-of-the-art Content ID tools go beyond what the law recommends by empowering rights holders to block, authorise or monetise their videos on YouTube in a way that is simple and straightforward". But, speaking out in support of the lawsuit, the aforementioned Brightman collaborating Peterson begged to differ. He said in a statement: "It would take almost 200 working days a year . This is a grotesque perversion, which is being scrupulously propagated by YouTube. The upshot would be that we will not have any time left to produce new songs". The claimants are asking the court to give them access to Google data to assess how often uncleared videos are watched. If this case did go to court it would be interesting, testing, as it would, service provider liability for any copyright infringement they enable, and the level of expectation, under the law, regarding takedown systems. Though by the time this, and the Viacom case, gets to court it might all be irrelevant, given that many feel that, even if YouTube's original takedown policy is deemed inadequate by the courts, the new automated takedown system Google has developed is more than sufficient. Past damages may be due, but it's unlikely there'd be any need for change of current operations.