If you, as the rights holder, want to take action against a third party for copyright infringement on YouTube, it is not enough to simply use the YouTube complaint procedure (strike and counter-notification). Even if YouTube blocks the content after a complaint and the YouTuber responds with a counter-notification, a prior warning is mandatory before you can obtain an injunction.
This was clarified in a recent case by the Regional Court of Cologne (judgment of July 22, 2024, Ref. 14 O 192/24). A media company had rights of use to a video that had been uploaded to YouTube without permission. After the company initiated the YouTube strike procedure and the YouTuber objected, YouTube demanded proof in court. The media company then applied for an injunction – but without a prior warning.
YouTube complaint procedure does not replace a warning letter
The Regional Court of Cologne ruled that the complaint procedure on YouTube does not replace a necessary warning. The reason: The YouTuber had immediately acknowledged the application for an interim injunction and therefore the media company bore the costs of the proceedings. Without a warning, it did not have sufficient grounds to initiate court proceedings directly.
The judges emphasized that a warning must always be issued before an injunction is initiated in order to avoid the costs of the proceedings. Only if the warning is ignored or rejected can further steps, such as applying for an injunction, be taken.
Warning letter protects against unnecessary costs
The decision of the Regional Court of Cologne clearly shows that the YouTube system of “strikes” and “counter-notifications” does not comply with the warning requirement. Even if platforms such as YouTube have mechanisms to punish copyright infringements, this is not a substitute for legal action or a proper warning.
This means for companies, creatives and rights holders: If you want to take action against copyright infringements on YouTube, a warning letter is essential in order to avoid subsequent costs in the event of an immediate acknowledgement. This also applies if the YouTube complaint procedure has already been used.
Conclusion: first issue a warning, then sue
Rights holders should always remember to issue a warning letter first before taking legal action. In case of doubt, this not only saves time, but also unnecessary legal costs. A warning letter remains the first step in the fight against copyright infringements – even in the digital space.