NEWS

TikTok publishes films without authorisation – no release from liability according to the Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG)

Munich Regional Court I judgement of 09/02/2024, 42 O 10792/22 – “TikTok”

 Contents

TikTok cannot choose between licensing and blocking

The plaintiff is Nikita Ventures GmbH, a Berlin-based film rights distributor and operator of YouTube channels – specialising in the worldwide licensing of films via online platforms. It sueds TikTok (the online platform for creating and sharing videos, which are primarily generated and uploaded by users) for unauthorized publication of ten films on TikTok. The plaintiff offered TikTok to license these for a fee. However, no contract was concluded. The plaintiff is of the opinion that TikTok evaded the negotiations and “refused” to conclude a license agreement. TikTok argues that “service providers have no obligation to accept any offer from a rights holder” and has removed the films in question from the platform.

The plaintiff asserted claims for injunctive relief, information and damages under §§ 97 Abs. 1, 2, 94 Abs. 1, 19a, 15 Abs. 2 UrhG (Act on Copyright and Related Rights), §§ 1 Abs.2, 21 Abs. 1 UrhDaG (Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers) §§ 242, 259 BGB (German Civil Code).

TikTok's delaying tactics

TikTok did not fulfil its licensing obligation (§ 4 UrhDaG) because it failed to make the best possible efforts to conclude a license agreement. The plaintiff endeavored to meet the defendant’s demands and to provide the requested information. However, TikTok did not show any interest in reaching a mutually beneficial result quickly.

License obligation

The further question of whether TikTok had a functioning technical system for blocking has not to be discussed. TikTok has breached its license obligation (§ 4 UrhDaG) and it is therefore irrelevant whether the requirements for blocking are met (§§ 7, 8 UrhDaG). Service providers must fulfil the obligations from §§ 4, 7 – 11 UrhDaG cumulatively.

To the point

The new Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG) does not allow online providers to sit back and negotiate. The rights holder does not have to tolerate stalling. Whether the platform operator has done its best to obtain a license is assessed according to the principle of proportionality.

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

AI & Branding: Europe’s brand work between “back to basics” and a GenAI leap

European marketing teams are putting branding back at the top for 2026—while GenAI is still rarely scaled broadly. At the same time, DPMA/EUIPO figures show sustained trademark activity.
Trademark Law

German Federal Court of Justice: No title protection for names of fictional film characters without an independent “life” – “Moneypenny”

The BGH clarifies: A fictional character’s name may in principle enjoy title protection—but only if the character itself is perceived as an independently “designatable” work (part) under trademark law. For “Moneypenny”, the court found insufficient individualisation and no sufficient detachment from the underlying work.
Trademark Law

GPTO enables EU-wide protection of regional products – new rights for craft and industrial goods

DPMA enables protection of geographical indications for industrial products such as knives, porcelain & watches – new EU regulation now in force.
Copyright / Design Law

Copyright protection for utilitarian objects: same test as for other works

The CJEU has held that utilitarian objects and works of applied art are protected by copyright under the same originality standard as any other category of works. It rejects a stricter threshold for everyday objects and provides detailed guidance on how national courts must assess originality and infringement in this context.
Copyright

Memorisation of AI training data infringes copyright

The Regional Court of Munich I has held that the memorisation of copyrighted training data in OpenAI’s GPT models infringes copyright. The judgment reshapes the legal framework for AI training and highlights key compliance risks for AI providers, rightsholders and companies using generative AI.

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

The Wiesbaden Regional Court held that advertising with outdated, significantly higher strike-through prices is misleading and violates the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the UWG. Consumers understand crossed-out prices as the most recently charged price; if the reference price does not reflect that and there is no clear explanation, the ad suggests an overstated discount. Therefore, strike-through prices must be tied to the price immediately charged before the reduction.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München