一般理解的是，如Youtube這類開放使用者上傳影音內容的影音平台，接受任何上傳內容並分享給公眾，可能無法在第一時間判斷上傳內容是否為非法(非授權)上傳，然後以人工或電腦科技分析這些上傳內容，才能正確判斷是否為非授權上傳的內容。
當非法上傳的影音內容通過影音平台傳播給公眾，此影音平台是否要擔負侵權責任，這就是本篇討論的重點。
本篇討論歐盟法院（Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)）（https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en）於6/22/2021作出的判決，CJEU案件資訊，共兩案：
原告：Frank Peterson
被告：Google LLC, YouTube Inc., YouTube LLC, Google Germany GmbH
原告：Elsevier Inc.
被告：Cyando AG
德國階段：
故事（本篇僅針對Frank Peterson v. Youtube案討論）：
其中原告Frank Peterson為音樂創作者，公司Nemo Studio負責人，被告Youtube為著名影音平台，讓使用者可以免費上傳內容，並散布於網路上，Google是老闆。值得一提的是，Frank Peterson與知名音樂家Sarah Brightman(莎拉布萊曼)簽約取得其影音內容的使用權，還進一步取得Capitol Records公司對Sarah Brightman散布所有錄音的專屬授權。
其中包括一個2008年巡迴錄音專輯「A Winter Symphony」，Frank Peterson在同年發現這個專輯內容竟然可以從Youtube看到，之後把畫面抓下後聯繫德國Google，要求發布停止與懲罰聲明，經告知Youtube後，各方對於是否阻止影音散布產生歧異。
Frank Peterson於是上告德國漢堡地方法院（Landgericht Hamburg），要求對Google/Youtube發出禁令，並損害賠償，但被駁回。
Frank Peterson再上訴漢堡高等地方法院（Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany)）。在2015年判決中，高等法院駁回部分地院判決，駁回的部分是要求被告組織侵權第三方上傳內容被公開散布，以及阻止相關連結內容與廣告，還要求被告提交上傳侵權內容的人名與住址。
但判決中也表示，影音平台Youtube並不需要"立即"針對其提供的服務負責，僅需要在正確的時間阻止相關侵權行為。
"By contrast, YouTube had not infringed any conduct obligations in respect of the recordings of the ‘Symphony Tour’ concerts. It is true that the videos featuring those musical works were unlawfully posted by third parties on the video-sharing platform. However, YouTube either did not have sufficient information about those infringements, or blocked access to the content in question in good time or, in certain cases, could not be accused of having infringed the obligation to block that content immediately."
畢竟原告的目標應該是大咖-Youtube/Google，案件繼續上訴，進入The Bundesgerichtshof (德國聯邦法院，Federal Court of Justice, Germany)，原告Frank Peterson主張Youtube知道有侵權內容時並未立即移除或阻止散布。就法院而言，如Youtube等地影音平台立場應該是中立的，並非主動的角色。在以下列舉的"著作權法（Copyright Directive）"，著作權人並無法對Youtube等提供影音分享的平台提出禁令（即便Youtube會因為任何上傳影音獲利），除非影音平台清楚知道侵權行為後又不做出立即的措施（移除或阻止散布）以確保侵權行為不再發生。
簡單來說，就德國各級法院來看，提供影音分享的平台並不自動擔負侵權責任，但是，對已知侵權行為必須做出適當的補救措施，否則也應擔負賠償責任。
"In the view of that court, that question should be answered in the affirmative, since it follows from Article 14(1) and Article 15(1) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce that an injunction against such an operator may be provided for under the national law of the Member States only where that operator has actual knowledge of the illegal activity or information."
歐洲階段：
根據歐洲法院判決，依循德國法院判決，影音平台並非自動對非法上傳的影音內容負責，然而需要有適當的措施避免這類問題，否則仍需要負責，或是發現為非法影音卻未立即處理者，仍要負責。
相關"Copyright Directive"：
Article 3(1) of that directive, that article being headed ‘Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject matter’, provides:
‘Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.’
（歐洲會員國應提供著作者獨佔權利，並可禁止他人公共傳播）
3.Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not precluding a situation under national law whereby a copyright holder or the holder of a related right may not obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose service has been used by a third party to infringe his or her right, that intermediary having had no knowledge or awareness of that infringement, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2000/31, unless, before court proceedings are commenced, that infringement has first been notified to that intermediary and the latter has failed to intervene expeditiously in order to remove the content in question or to block access to it and to ensure that such infringements do not recur. It is, however, for the national courts to satisfy themselves, when applying such a condition, that that condition does not result in the actual cessation of the infringement being delayed in such a way as to cause disproportionate damage to the rightholder.
（根據國內法，當中間人(如影音平台)不知或沒有意識到侵權行為時，著作權人可能不能對被侵害其權利的第三方使用的中間人發出禁令，除非此中間人在被告知有侵權內容時又不去移除或是阻止公眾存取侵權內容。如果以上措施延遲，將未造成權利人不成比例的損害。）
編按，判決中討論不少法律議題，但都圍繞在上述有關Youtube等影音平台的責任與義務，但有興趣的應該去看看判決文。
CJEU判決：
新聞：
Ron
