In a ruling dated August 22, 2017 (case reference: 11 U 71/16), the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main obliged YouTube to disclose the email address of the responsible user in the event of copyright infringements. However, telephone numbers or IP addresses are not covered by the right to information.
The decision can also be applied to other companies through which copyright infringements can be committed. These include Google, eBay, Amazon, Instagram, Facebook and many more.
Film exploiter files suit against YouTube
The lawsuit was brought by a film exploiter from Germany. It was entitled to the exclusive rights of use to two films published by two users on YouTube. However, as the films were published under a pseudonym, the film exploiter demanded information from YouTube about the name and address of the two users. However, because the real name and postal address were not known to YouTube either, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt a.M. had to clarify the question of whether telephone numbers, email addresses and the IP address also fall under the term “address” within the meaning of Section 101 para. 3 no. 1 UrhG.
YouTube must hand over email addresses
Contrary to the opinion of the Frankfurt Regional Court, the Frankfurt a.M. Higher Regional Court has now upheld the claim in part. Companies such as YouTube and Google are obliged to provide information about the email addresses of copyright-infringing users. Telephone numbers and IP addresses, on the other hand, are not covered by the right to information.
In justifying its decision, the OLG Frankfurt a.M. primarily relied on the right to information under the Copyright Act. Accordingly, companies that offer a service through which copyright infringements are committed are obliged to provide information about the name and address.
The term “address” must be interpreted broadly
The term “address” also includes the email address. This is because – similar to the postal address – it provides information about where the user can be “written to”.
“The fact that the term ‘address’ in German originally only meant the postal address is historically justified,” said the judges of the OLG. The address is merely the indication of the place where you can write to someone. The term “address” in Section 101 UrhG dates back to 1990 and must be interpreted broadly in the context of constant technical progress. Electronic correspondence has grown significantly in the last twenty years and can be used by anyone. If a person has an email address, it can be assumed in this day and age that a letter will reach the recipient via this channel. Only this understanding of the term takes sufficient account of“the changed communication habits and the triumph of electronic business transactions“.
No right to information about telephone numbers and IP addresses
Telephone numbers and the IP address, on the other hand, are not to be understood under the term address. According to common usage, these represent different contact details. The IP address does not have a communication function. In electronic data processing, it serves solely to identify the terminal device from which a particular website is accessed. The telephone number, on the other hand, has a communication function, but “address” and “telephone number” are regarded as quite different contact details”.