Newsletter
Does a Non-Copyright Owner's Complaint to YouTube, Alleging Infringement by a Third Party's Videos, Necessarily Constitute a False Notice under Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act? The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court Weighs In.
Internet service providers ("ISP"s) stipulated in Taiwan's Copyright Act like YouTube generally handle mechanisms for accepting copyright infringement complaints and taking down allegedly infringing content, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 90-7 and related provisions of Taiwan's Copyright Act and thereby avoid joint liability for their users' copyright infringement (i.e., the Safe Harbor Principle). However, such complaint mechanisms involve only a facial review by the ISP of the evidence of infringement submitted by the complainant. In order to prevent abuse of this system, Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act provides that "A person who presents an internet service provider with a false notice or false counter-notice out of intent or negligence shall be liable for damages for any injury suffered by the user, copyright holder, plate right holder or internet service provider," so as to protect the rights and interests of users (such as self-media operators running their own channels). However, if a complainant is neither the copyright owner nor an exclusive licensee, does their complaint necessarily constitute a "false notice" under Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act? This question appears to remain unresolved.
In this regard, the 2024 Min Zhu Su Zi No. 43 judgment, rendered by Intellectual Property and Commercial Court on 15 May 2026, appears to have adopted a negative position. In that case, the plaintiff operated a YouTube channel that compiled and posted trailers released by various film studios over an extended period, earning advertising revenue-sharing income from the channel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, despite knowing it was not the exclusive licensee of the videos at issue and therefore lacked standing to bring suit or assert exclusionary rights in the name of the copyright owner, nonetheless maliciously submitted false complaints to the platform, alleging that the plaintiff had infringed its copyright and causing the platform to take down the plaintiff's channel, thereby eliminating its ability to generate revenue. The plaintiff accordingly sought damages under Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act for the lost revenue resulting from the channel's removal.
However, the IP and Commercial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek damages for the lost revenue resulting from the channel's removal under Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act. The court's reasoning is summarized as follows.
1. Liability for damages under Article 90-11 requires that: (1) the actor submitted a false notice or false counter-notice to the internet service provider; (2) this act caused damage to a user, copyright owner, plate rights holder, or internet service provider (i.e., causation); and (3) the actor acted with intent or negligence.
2. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving both that the defendant in fact submitted the aforementioned false notice, and that the defendant knowingly and intentionally caused it (the complaint) to be submitted, thereby bringing about the plaintiff's aforementioned damages.
3. The defendant was the exclusive licensee of the 119 videos listed in Appendix 3-1 through 3-6, and accordingly, the defendant's complaints to YouTube regarding those videos could not be characterized as "false notices."
4. Although the defendant was not the exclusive licensee of the four videos listed in Appendix 3-7, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence establishing that the defendant knew it was not the exclusive licensee of those four videos but nevertheless intentionally submitted a false complaint. Moreover, given that the plaintiff had in fact infringed the defendant's copyright in the 119 videos listed in Appendix 3-1 through 3-6, the defendant's complaints as to those 119 videos were substantively accurate. Accordingly, even if the defendant's complaint regarding the four videos in Appendix 3-7 was mistaken, this did not change the fact that the plaintiff's videos and channel were removed on legitimate grounds of infringement. The plaintiff's claim therefore did not satisfy the requirements of Article 90-11.
In sum, even where a complainant's report encompasses subject matter to which it holds no rights, the court will not necessarily find that the complaint as a whole constitutes a false notice. A party affected by such a complaint (the plaintiff in this case) still bears the burden of proving that the complainant knowingly submitted a false notice, and the court will further consider the totality of the plaintiff's infringing conduct in determining whether the complainant should be held liable for damages under Article 90-11 of the Copyright Act.