In April 2021, the Austrian Supreme Court referred two questions of principle to the CJEU concerning the activity of a satellite TV package provider (Austrian Supreme Court, 4Ob195/20k). On 22 September 2022, the Advocate General provided his opinion on the case. The questions referred can be summarised as follows: Is Article 1(2)(b) of the Satellite…

The Austrian Supreme Court held that YouTube – as a host service provider – was not responsible for copyright infringements by its users as long as it was not put on notice of the infringements (17. 9. 2021, 4 Ob 132/21x). For monetizing uploaded videos, the uploading user has to confirm that they have read…

Although the legal consequences of infringement of different IP rights (e.g. copyright, trademarks and patents) are in principle identically regulated in Austria by the corresponding laws, the requirements for protection and acts of exploitation reserved to the proprietor, which are adapted to the market conditions, are fundamentally different depending on the type of IP right….

ORF/Facebook – First follow up ruling after CJEU C18/18 – Glawischnig/Facebook First, a little bit of history. Back in 2016, a Facebook post containing an article with a photograph of the former Austrian politician Eva Glawischnig gave rise to a landmark decision against Facebook. Alongside a photo of Ms Glawischnig, she was referred to as,…

On Valentine’s Day, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna (docket no 4 R 119/18a) issued a judgment on a complaint by the Austrian broadcasting company Puls 4 against YouTube, predating the much-discussed Article 17 (formerly known as Article 13) of the Copyright Directive. The petition requested aimed to prevent YouTube from making available videos containing…

According to the Vienna Commercial Court, YouTube is not a mere host provider. Host providers are privileged, and shall not be liable for information stored if the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information, and the provider immediately removes or blocks information when it becomes aware of the illegal content. According…

The Austrian Supreme Court has recently shed some light on the requirements for the admissible quotation of photos (judgment of 26 September 2017, 4Ob81/17s). In this case, a photographer had taken photos of a poacher who was killed in 1982. The competent collecting society sued a private TV-broadcasting station for their unauthorised use of one…

A photographer took a portrait of a lawyer, who subsequently published the portrait in numerous newspaper articles. A lawsuit was initiated by an association enforcing the rights of the photographer. The photographer had sent the picture to the lawyer in JPEG-format. In the IPTC-metadata of the file (thus data which contain information about other data),…

Placing a copyright-infringing armchair in a hotel lobby does not qualify as “distribution”, but displaying a photo of it on the hotel’s website does qualify as “making available” under copyright law.  This is the outcome of a recent Austrian Supreme Court judgment, notable for its reversal of the decision of that same court in the…