Copyright Directive: YouTube, Google and Facebook are responsible for plagiarism

The European Parliament has finally adopted its new directive on the protection of copyright, a controversial text that has been studied for several months. Articles 15 and 17 of this new directive (11 and 13 in the preparatory text) have major implications for GAFA, including for YouTube (Google) which is now criminally responsible for cases of plagiarism or copyright infringement. its platform.

On 26 March 2019, the European Parliament adopted the final version of its Copyright Directive. It aims to better protect the works of creators in the digital age where YouTube, Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple have a leading role in the way we consume the works of artists. Articles 15 and 17 of this directive were strongly criticized by the GAFA. They are finally part of the text voted by the majority of the Members of the European Parliament.

YouTube, Google, Facebook: GAFA may be sued for copyright infringement

The GAFA have fought the most for failing this directive at the level of the European Parliament, because its implications are unfavorable in many respects. Before this new text, video platforms like YouTube were considered as mere hosts. They could not therefore be criminally responsible for the content published by the channels.

But now, a rights holder can sue YouTube in case of violation of his rights. It can be a musician, a composer, a film producer who finds unauthorized use of his work.

YouTube must ensure that each video posted does not violate a creator's rights. The platform is already working on it as it can, but it is very difficult to get there with the moderators and even the help of artificial intelligence. If you fail to fulfill this mission effectively, the only way for YouTube to avoid possible legal action is to negotiate licenses with the artists for the free distribution of their content. He will have to pay them money in compensation. This will require huge investments on the one hand and it is also difficult to do so given the number of actors to consider.

Finally, it goes without saying that videographers will be the first to be impacted. Article 17 (13 in the preparatory text) sparked an outcry from content creators. Many consider this directive as a crime and complain that it will lead to the asphyxiation of creativity on the Internet.

Critics did not finally get the better of this controversial text. Article 15 as far as it is concerned relates to the creation of a "neighboring right of copyright" which will allow press companies to be better remunerated by social media as well as content aggregators (Google News, Apple News, Facebook, etc.) to share some of their content or to share links to reporters' work.