Conclusie A-G: YouTube niet aansprakelijk voor illegaal uploaden

HvJ EU conclusie A-G 16 juli 2020, IEF 19333, IT 3193, IEFbe 3109; ECLI:EU:C:2020:586 (Frank Peterson tegen Google en YouTube) Frank Peterson, een muziekproducent, heeft een procedure aangespannen tegen YouTube en moederbedrijf Google voor de Duitse rechtbanken met betrekking tot het uploaden naar YouTube van muziek van zangeres Sarah Brightmann, waarop hij beweert verschillende rechten te hebben. Het materiaal is geüpload door gebruikers van dat platform zonder zijn toestemming. Volgens de advocaat-generaal zijn online platforms zoals YouTube, niet direct aansprakelijk voor het illegaal uploaden van beschermde werken door de gebruikers van die platforms.

VI.    Conclusion

256. In the light of all the above considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) in Cases C‑682/18 and C‑683/18 as follows:

(1)      Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform and the operator of a file-hosting and -sharing platform do not carry out an act of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision when a user of their platforms uploads a protected work there.

(2)      Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, the operator of a video-sharing platform and the operator of a file-hosting and -sharing platform can benefit from the exemption under that provision in respect of all liability that may result from the files that they store at the request of users of their platforms.

(3)      Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, the situations mentioned in that provision, namely the situation where a service provider has ‘actual knowledge of illegal activity or information’ and the situation where such a provider is ‘aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent’, refer to specific illegal information.

(4)      Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding rightholders from being able to apply for an injunction against a provider whose service that consists of the storage of information provided by a user is used by third parties to infringe a copyright or related right only if such an infringement has taken place again after notification of a clear infringement has been provided.