LUXEMBOURG: Google’s YouTube has scored a win in its latest copyright-infringement challenge after Europe’s top court said online platforms are not liable for users uploading unauthorized works unless the platforms failed to take quick action to remove or block access to the content.
The case marks the latest development in a long-running battle between Europe’s $1 trillion creative industry and online platforms, with the former seeking redress for unauthorized works that are uploaded.
It is also part of the wider debate on how much online platforms and social media should do to police the posting of unauthorized, illegal or hateful content, an issue that European Union regulators are targeting with tough new rules that could come into force next year.
“As currently stands, operators of online platforms do not, in principle, themselves make a communication to the public of copyright-protected content illegally posted online by users of those platforms,” the EU Court of Justice said.
“However, those operators do make such a communication in breach of copyright where they contribute, beyond merely making those platforms available, to giving access to such content to the public,” judges said.
The EU court said platforms could also be liable if they do not put in place the appropriate technological tools to tackle copyright breaches by their users or where they provide tools on their platforms for illegal sharing of content.
In response to the court ruling a YouTube spokesperson said: “YouTube is a leader in copyright and supports rights holders being paid their fair share.”
“That’s why we’ve invested in state of the art copyright tools which have created an entirely new revenue stream for the industry. In the past 12 months alone we have paid $4 billion to the music industry, over 30 percent of which comes from monetised user generated content.”
YouTube found itself in the dock after Frank Peterson, a music producer, sued the company and Google in Germany over the uploading to YouTube by users in 2008 of several phonograms to which he holds the rights.
In a second case, publishing group Elsevier took legal action against file-hosting service Cyando in Germany after its users uploaded several Elsevier works on its platform Uploaded in 2013 without its approval.
A German court subsequently sought advice from the EU Court of Justice, which ruled on both cases on Tuesday.
Existing EU rules exempt YouTube and its peers from such liability regarding copyright when they are told of violations and remove them.
The EU last year overhauled its copyright rules for the first time in two decades to help its creative industries by adopting a key provision known as Article 17. This requires YouTube, Facebook’s Instagram and other sharing platforms to install filters to prevent users from uploading copyrighted materials.
But this has drawn criticism from civil rights groups worried about potential censorship by authoritarian governments and risks to freedom of expression.
Several EU countries have yet to transpose the EU law into national legislation, due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The European Commission has also proposed much a more wide-ranging Digital Services Act, which sets stringent obligations on very large online companies, online platforms and hosting services, backed by fines up to 6 percent of a company’s revenue for non-compliance.
This would apply to websites, Internet infrastructure services and online platforms such as online marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.
The draft rules need to be thrashed out with EU countries and EU lawmakers before they can become law, likely to be next year.
YouTube wins user copyright fight in top EU court ruling
https://arab.news/vgy6k
YouTube wins user copyright fight in top EU court ruling
- Youtube wins long-running copyright-infringement fight against the European Union.
- Last year, the EU overhauled law requiring YouTube, Facebook’s Instagram and other sharing platforms to install filters to prevent users from uploading copyrighted materials.
Foreign media group slams Israel for refusing to lift Gaza press ban
- Foreign Press Association expresses 'profound disappointment' with Israeli government’s response to a Supreme Court appeal
- Israel has barred foreign journalists from independently entering the devastated territory since the war started
JERUSALEM: An international media association on Tuesday criticized the Israeli government for maintaining its ban on unrestricted media access to Gaza, calling the move disappointing.
The government had told the Supreme Court in a submission late Sunday that the ban should remain in place, citing security risks in the Gaza Strip.
The submission was in response to a petition filed by the Foreign Press Association (FPA) — which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and Palestinian territories — seeking immediate and unrestricted access for foreign journalists to the Gaza Strip.
“The Foreign Press Association expresses its profound disappointment with the Israeli government’s latest response to our appeal for full and free access to the Gaza Strip,” the association said on Tuesday.
“Instead of presenting a plan for allowing journalists into Gaza independently and letting us work alongside our brave Palestinian colleagues, the government has decided once again to lock us out” despite the ceasefire in the territory, it added.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, triggered by an attack on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, the government has barred foreign journalists from independently entering the devastated territory.
Instead, Israel has allowed only a limited number of reporters to enter Gaza on a case-by-case basis, embedded with its military inside the blockaded Palestinian territory.
The FPA filed its petition in 2024, after which the court granted the government several extensions to submit its response.
Last month, however, the court set January 4 as a final deadline for the government to present a plan for allowing media access to Gaza.
In its submission, the government maintained that the ban should remain in place.
“This is for security reasons, based on the position of the defense establishment, which maintains that a security risk associated with such entry still exists,” the government submission said.
The government also said that the search for the remains of the last hostage held in Gaza was ongoing, suggesting that allowing journalists in at this stage could hinder the operation.
The remains of Ran Gvili, whose body was taken to Gaza after he was killed during Hamas’s 2023 attack, have still not been recovered despite the ceasefire.
The FPA said it planned to submit a “robust response” to the court, and expressed hope the “judges will put an end to this charade.”
“The FPA is confident that the court will provide justice in light of the continuous infringement of the fundamental principles of freedom of speech, the public’s right to know and free press,” the association added.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the matter, though it is unclear when a decision will be handed down.
An AFP journalist sits on the board of the FPA.
