Explore

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, alleged that the German google-webpage contained a “snippet” from a third-party’s blog which suggested that the plaintiff had owned a brothel. In German legal language, a “snippet” is the text below the Hyperlink and the URL on the search engine results page displayed by Google, which “quotes” a part of the linked web page. The court ruled that this “snippet” is an expression of Google, therefore Google was liable for that otherwise third-party content.

After the federal elections in Germany in September 2013, the leaders of the two coalition parties have concluded a non-binding coalition agreement that includes expanded hosting provider liability for online copyright infringement. The agreement says one of the coalition’s aims is to combat mass infringements of copyright and therefore “internet service providers should take more responsibility.” The grand coalition plans to “improve enforcement in particular towards platforms whose business model is mainly based on the infringement of copyright.” To that end, the coalition would like to “ensure that such service providers no longer enjoy the general liability privilege as so-called hosting provider and in particular no longer receive advertising revenues.” However, it is unclear what precisely the grand coalition...

The plaintiff, a TV station owner, alleged that the German-language Wikipedia article about him contained inaccurate information. The Court ruled that Wikimedia is a “service provider” and not a “content provider.” As a service provider, the German Court declared, Wikimedia is not liable for user-generated content, nor should proactively check Wikipedia entries for allegedly illegal or inaccurate content. Furthermore, because it is a service provider, the Wikimedia Foundation may not be held liable for financial damages. If, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is informed of certain content allegedly in violation of local law, according to the court, that content should be removed to maintain immunity from liability. See also Wikimedia Blog post for a summary of the decision in English.

(1) This case concerns a dispute between the German copyright collecting society, GEMA, and the Swiss-based file-hosting service, RapidShare. GEMA sued RapidShare in Germany, alleging that over 4,800 copyrighted music files were shared via RapidShare without consent from GEMA or the right holders. (2) According to the Court, although RapidShare’s business model is not primarily designed for violating rights, it nevertheless provides incentives to third parties to illegally share copyrighted content. It does so by (i) generating revenues through premium accounts which enhance massive data downloads, rather than on fees for storage space, as it is common for cloud computing; (ii) providing anonymous accounts to its user.; (iii) having an abuse rate of 5 to 6 percent - as acknowledged by Rapidshare - that corresponds to...

The prediction of certain negative terms within the autocomplete function of the Google’s search engine is likely to violate personality rights. Google is not privileged by § 10 TMG because the autocomplete function creates new data out of the behavior of Google users. In this case, Google does not qualify as an intermediary for information but as a creator of content. Yet, there are limits to Google’s liability for violations of personality rights caused by the autocomplete function of its search engine. The autocomplete function is no direct threat to personality rights; it is rather a certain type of user behavior that creates a threat. Therefore, Google does not need to check every suggested term in advance. But Google has to stop the display of specific terms if it has knowledge that the suggested terms violate...

The Court ruled that whoever uses a Wi-Fi router and does not implement the safety standards against third party usage that are commonly accepted at the time the router is bought, is liable for interferences, if third parties abuse this internet access for copy right infringement. A user of a Wi-Fi router has to comply with commonly accepted safety standards at the time she starts using the router independently from the previous occurrence of infringing acts by third parties. The general burden of proof of the identity of the infringer is on the plaintiff. However, when the defendant alleges that she did not cause the infringement, she bears a duty to disclose the circumstances under which such infringement could occur (note that there is no general duty to disclose material facts/discovery in Germany).