German Court Rules Against YouTube Over Copyright

BERLIN — A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.

The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.

The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling.

YouTube must not publish those videos any more and provide information to settle the amount of compensation in at least three cases in which Brightman videos were uploaded, the court said.

Arnd Haller, director of legal affairs at Google Germany, said the court ruling disregards the current e-commerce directive of the European Union.

"This decision results in a substantial legal uncertainty for all providers of video platforms, opinion forums, social communities, blogs and many other Internet services in Germany," Haller said in a statement.

The plaintiff was not identified and a court spokesman could not be reached for comment. The court statement only said the plaintiff has claimed to be the copyright holder for several of Sarah Brightman's performances.

Google said in a statement that the plaintiff was Frank Peterson. He is a German composer and producer for Brightman and other artists, according to his website.

Comments

[drmlgcc]

04:46 PM on 09/07/2010

i wonder how long it will take pop musicians and main stream music companies to realize that having a video on youtube is pretty much the best free advertisement of an artist or product that you can get - between embeds, recommended, and related, why would any company PAY for a CHANCE viewing on terrestrial television or radio or whatever?

[goodog]

03:14 PM on 09/05/2010

The irony being I would probably never had heard of Sarah Brightman were it not for this so-called case of copyright infringement.

[Aelfgifu]

06:44 AM on 09/06/2010

You need to get out more. ;)

[planetjeffy]

12:14 AM on 09/05/2010

Google's policy is to remove any violating material when it is reported. They also have software to detect copy-written material and remove it. Sarah Brightman would be better off working with Google to monetize the traffic that is generated from the videos and monetize the traffic she could get to her website from YouTube.

[SilentSolidarity]

12:04 AM on 09/05/2010

Can someone sum it up for me? I really don't get it. Does that mean that people residing in Germany can upload copyrighted material or does that mean that YouTube has to remove any material that indicates copyright infringement?

[PenFighter]

01:57 PM on 09/04/2010

Just another instance of an ossified industry trying to deal with new technology by clinging to completely outdated models, which have been PROVEN not to work any more.

So, let me get this straight: in an industry where sales are driven ENTIRELY by visibility, the choice here is to cut off that visibility because they are not being paid for it beforehand, thus cutting off any chance of being paid for it at any time in the future. Brilliant.

What makes them think I care if I see Sarah in concert unless I've already seen video of her performing and know that she's not a boring performer? You just can't afford to go to that many concerts at the current prices.

[PenFighter]

02:28 PM on 09/04/2010

Oh right... this producer, Frank Peterson, saw his chance to tag Google's deep pockets for some scratch. After all, he doesn't have to pay the bad-publicity price, Sarah does. No one even knows it was him grubbing for money, they think it was Sarah.

Still, Google must know there are all manner of gold-digging producers and minor industry players out there just waiting to cash in, so I'd assume they have to expect this kind of thing.

[Stefan Dembowski]

11:54 AM on 09/04/2010

IMO, hardly a surprise.

YouTube can't stop people from uploading copyrighted material, but as per some laws, they can be held responsible.

[Kamereon]

01:46 AM on 09/04/2010

It's so strange, I used to be such a cheerleader for Google, but after them teaming up with Verizon...yeah, not so much. I wonder how the negative public perception of Google, now that they oppose a neutral internet, will affect court cases.

[RobinSeattle]

06:36 AM on 09/04/2010

If those cases get to a jury I can see where you are coming from. Google really screwed the pooch when it made that underhanded deal with Verizon. But finding against You Tube would be the public shooting itself in the foot since it will result in more heavy handed Stasi-like actions by the RIAA with regard to fan activity on video sites. That is bad for artists and their labels because it chokes off free advertising for their wares. And this at a time when terrestrial radio pays no royalties even though internet radio has to. The entertainment companies are insane.

[sweetsalad]

03:27 PM on 09/03/2010

This is no surprise because the Internet is an open bar where everyone is consuming and using pieces of attire that belong to someone in the bar. http://www.digitalundivide.com

[bibimimi]

03:22 PM on 09/03/2010

I would not deliberately watch any Sarah Brightman vids on u2b, maybe that 80s disco queen act she had b4 ALWebber, and even then it'd be just for some snorting ridicule.