If you as the rights holder want to take action against a third party for a YouTube copyright infringement, 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 interim injunction – but without 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 for copyright infringement on YouTube 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 acknowledgment. This also applies if the YouTube complaint procedure has already been used.
Why the topic of “YouTube copyright infringement” is important for companies
For many companies that create content, YouTube is an indispensable marketing and sales channel. Whether product videos, commercials or tutorials – companies often invest considerable resources in the creation of high-quality content. Unfortunately, however, they are increasingly confronted with copyright infringements when third parties copy and publish their videos without permission. This can not only damage the brand image, but also lead to a loss of revenue, as unauthorized videos reduce the organic reach and thus the advertising value of the original. An effective defense strategy against “YouTube copyright infringement” is therefore essential for companies to maintain control over their content and combat abuse in a targeted manner.
Warning letter as a first step: protection against high costs
Companies should be aware that the mere use of the YouTube complaint procedure is not sufficient to ensure comprehensive protection of their rights. The decision of the Cologne Regional Court makes it clear that a warning must always be issued in the event of a “YouTube copyright infringement” before judicial measures, such as an injunction, make sense. This warning serves not only as a formal notice to the infringer, but also protects the company from unnecessary legal costs if the infringement is immediately recognized in the context of an injunction. By issuing a warning at an early stage, companies can minimize the risk of high legal expenses and effectively enforce their rights.
Conclusion: First issue a warning, then take legal action – the sensible approach to copyright protection
Rights holders should always bear in mind that the warning letter is an essential first step before legal action is taken. This procedure is not only enshrined in law, but also offers practical advantages. By issuing a warning letter, the alleged copyright infringer can be given the opportunity to resolve the infringement out of court, which in many cases brings faster results and may put less strain on the relationship with the infringer. In addition, this often avoids costly and lengthy legal disputes, which would take up resources and time.
Especially in the digital space, where content can be accessed and distributed worldwide with just a few clicks, warning letters remain a key step in the fight against the illegal use of protected works. Although platforms such as YouTube offer tools for complaining about and punishing copyright infringements, these procedures alone are often not enough to fully protect your own rights. The combination of a well-documented complaint procedure and a legally sound warning is therefore the most effective strategy for successfully enforcing copyrights and avoiding unnecessary legal costs.
