A decision from the Appellate Court (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht) is still pending. After being notified of individual copyright violations it should have removed the infringing content from its platform and, in order to prevent future infringements regarding that content, implement a Content-ID system and if necessary a word filter. The court found, however, that YouTube may be held secondarily liable (Störerhaftung). The court held that YouTube could not be held primarily liable, since the provider had neither uploaded the infringing material, nor had adopted it in any way. YouTube denied any obligation to monitor the content that was being uploaded to its platform. In 2010, for instance, GEMA filed a test case before the District Court of Hamburg claiming that 12 songs from its repertoire (for the purpose of that case merely a symbolic number) were made publicly available without permission and thus YouTube was liable for copyright infringement. From time to time certain aspects of it have been “outsourced” and made subject to litigation. Both parties remain unwilling to move and consequently in January 2013 negotiations have once again reached deadlock.Īs noted above, the never-ending negotiation is not the only means by which the dispute is fuelled.
YouTube claims to have concluded similar agreements with collection societies in more than 40 different countries. YouTube on the other hand, still refuses to pay this amount and instead offers to pay a certain percentage of the ad revenue that is being earned with videos incorporating GEMA repertoire. Over the years of ongoing negotiations this amount has subsequently been reduced to €0.00375 (0.375 cents) per view. Periods of seemingly fruitful discussions have alternated with occasional tantrums usually followed by a somewhat convincingly delivered statement that negotiations have ultimately failed this time the main culprit for this usually being the other side and the opposing views as to how the legal term “equitable remuneration” should be converted into an equitable amount of money.Īt the beginning of the negotiations GEMA offered a rate of €0.12 per view, which YouTube turned down, describing it as “without comparison in the history of online music”. The parties have been negotiating ever since.
#GEMA REPERTOIRE LICENSE#
However, when that period lapsed, by the end of March 2009, the parties couldn’t agree on a subsequent understanding and the initial license agreement ran out. The license agreement had been concluded for an initial 2-years period. In 2007 GEMA and Google’s video platform YouTube agreed on a license contract, which allowed YouTube to stream videos that contained music being part of the GEMA repertoire for a flat fee. Besides an almost 4-year-long quarrel over the amount of royalties to be paid – the prime cause of mutual indignation – there are various minor skirmishes which are being fought through different channels including, but not limited to litigation, arbitration, mediation and last but not least the media.
Even the technology-savvy observer will inevitably loose track or temper. They do not appear to be amused about it though and so they fight in many different ways. This connection embroils YouTube and GEMA in a multitude of ways. YouTube and GEMA (the German Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights) do have something in common: they are both committed to entertainment, since they could not exist without it.
“The latest development is that GEMA has filed another lawsuit against YouTube, demanding from YouTube to take down the on-screen notice ‘Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights.’”