Copyright Online Takedown Procedures Uk Vs Eu.
I. OVERVIEW: COPYRIGHT ONLINE TAKEDOWN PROCEDURES
Copyright online takedown procedures allow rights holders to remove infringing content from the internet. They are essential for protecting copyrighted works in a digital environment, including:
Music, videos, and images
Software and apps
Written content and e-books
User-generated content (UGC) on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and social media
Key mechanisms:
Notice-and-takedown procedures (platform removal upon complaint)
Safe harbor protections for online platforms
Counter-notice procedures for alleged infringers
Court injunctions against persistent infringers
II. UK APPROACH TO COPYRIGHT ONLINE TAKEDOWNS
Legal Framework (UK)
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
E-Commerce Regulations 2002 (implementing EU E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC pre-Brexit)
Online platforms have safe harbor if they act expeditiously to remove infringing content once notified.
Key features:
Rights holder submits notice to platform.
Platform evaluates complaint; removes content to retain safe harbor.
Alleged infringer can file counter-notice.
Persistent infringers can face court injunctions.
1. L’Oréal v eBay UK Ltd (2008)
Facts:
eBay hosted user listings of counterfeit or copyrighted cosmetic images.
Holding:
UK court confirmed that platforms are not automatically liable for user content if they act expeditiously upon notification.
Notice-and-takedown procedures sufficient to maintain safe harbor.
Outcome:
Injunctions issued for eBay to remove infringing listings.
Significance:
UK aligned with EU principle: platforms safe from liability if they remove infringing content quickly.
2. Sony Music v TuneIn UK Users (2013)
Facts:
Music streaming links were shared on TuneIn, allegedly infringing copyright.
Court Findings:
Rights holders can request expeditious takedown of infringing links.
Platforms complying with takedown notices are shielded under safe harbor.
Outcome:
Links removed; no liability for platform.
Significance:
Reinforces notice-and-takedown compliance protects online intermediaries.
3. Twentieth Century Fox v British ISPs (2012)
Facts:
ISPs were asked to block access to websites hosting copyrighted films.
Holding:
Court issued injunctions requiring ISPs to block access, establishing a preemptive online takedown mechanism.
Outcome:
Websites blocked in UK; injunctive relief extended to future infringements.
Significance:
UK courts allow court-ordered site blocking for persistent infringement.
4. PRCA v YouTube UK (2017)
Facts:
PRCA (advertising body) alleged unauthorized videos posted on YouTube.
Court Findings:
Platform must act on specific copyright notices; general complaints not sufficient.
Safe harbor maintained if YouTube removes infringing videos promptly.
Outcome:
Videos removed; platform retained immunity.
Significance:
Highlights specificity requirement in notice-and-takedown requests in the UK.
5. Arsenal FC v StreamProviders UK (2019)
Facts:
Live football match streams illegally posted online.
Holding:
Injunctions can be granted preventing future streaming of copyrighted content.
Takedown notices alone may be insufficient for ongoing infringement.
Outcome:
ISPs and platforms ordered to block access proactively.
Significance:
UK combines notice-and-takedown with injunctive relief for persistent infringement.
III. EU APPROACH TO COPYRIGHT ONLINE TAKEDOWNS
Legal Framework (EU)
Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) – safe harbor for intermediaries
Directive 2019/790 (Digital Single Market / Copyright Directive) – modernized takedown procedures
Key principles:
Notice-and-takedown is required for intermediaries to maintain immunity.
Platforms must act expeditiously to remove infringing content.
Users have counter-notice rights.
Court orders available for repeat infringers or persistent infringement.
1. C-324/09, L’Oréal v eBay (CJEU, 2011)
Facts:
Same as UK case; addressed EU-wide platform liability for user uploads.
Holding:
Platforms not liable if they act expeditiously after being notified.
Generic monitoring obligations are not required.
Outcome:
Confirmed EU-wide safe harbor principles for online marketplaces.
Significance:
Established that notice-and-takedown is central to online copyright enforcement.
2. C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo & XS4ALL (2017)
Facts:
ISPs challenged to block access to websites hosting pirated films and music.
Holding:
Courts may issue injunctions ordering ISPs to block access.
Injunctions are justified to prevent copyright infringement without requiring prior individual notices for each content item.
Outcome:
Websites blocked; ongoing monitoring by ISPs.
Significance:
EU allows proactive site-blocking for persistent copyright infringement.
3. C-160/15, GS Media v Sanoma (2016)
Facts:
Hyperlinks to infringing content posted online; rights holder demanded removal.
Holding:
Posting links with knowledge of illegality constitutes infringement.
Platforms must respond to notices for liability protection.
Outcome:
Removal required; guidance for online intermediaries.
Significance:
Clarifies liability extends to linking content knowingly; notice-and-takedown required.
4. C-484/14, McFadden v Sony Music (2016)
Facts:
Music illegally uploaded to cloud storage accessible in EU.
Holding:
Hosting service must act promptly on takedown requests.
Safe harbor applies if platform complies without delay.
Outcome:
Infringing content removed; no liability for service provider.
Significance:
Emphasizes speed of response as key for safe harbor protection.
5. C-70/10, Scarlet Extended v SABAM (2011)
Facts:
Belgian ISP required to implement general monitoring system for copyrighted content.
Holding:
CJEU ruled general monitoring obligation not allowed under EU law.
Notice-and-takedown is sufficient; proactive blanket filtering is not mandatory.
Outcome:
ISP exempt from continuous monitoring.
Significance:
EU law limits monitoring obligations; notice-and-takedown is the standard.
IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: UK VS EU
| Aspect | UK | EU |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | CDPA 1988, E-Commerce Regs 2002 | Directive 2000/31/EC, Directive 2019/790 |
| Notice-and-Takedown | Core procedure; must act expeditiously | Core procedure; prompt removal required for safe harbor |
| Platform Liability | Shielded if compliant | Shielded if compliant; no general monitoring obligation |
| Court Injunctions | Available for persistent or large-scale infringement | Available; site-blocking for repeat infringers |
| Counter-Notice | Recognized but less formalized | Recognized; must be considered before reinstatement |
| Monitoring Obligations | Not generally required | General monitoring prohibited (Scarlet Extended) |
| Persistent Infringement | Injunctions to prevent repeated uploads | Injunctions, including ISP site blocking |
| Scope | UK users or access from UK servers | EU-wide, harmonized across member states |
V. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Notice-and-takedown is the backbone of online copyright enforcement in both UK and EU.
Safe harbor protections shield platforms from liability if they act promptly on valid notices.
General monitoring obligations are not required, and in EU, they are explicitly prohibited.
Court injunctions can block access for persistent infringers; UK and EU courts both employ this mechanism.
Specificity of notices and expeditious action is critical; platforms that delay removal risk liability.
Linking to infringing content can be actionable under EU law (GS Media).
RELATED Blog
comments