DR. SARAFI lawyers obtain cancellation of a preliminary injunction against a streamer due to a reaction video

Nuremberg-Fürth, March 3, 2025 — Are reaction videos generally qualified as copyright infringement? DR. SARAFI lawyers obtained the complete cancellation of a preliminary injunction against a streamer who had subjected a video of the YouTuber “Landlord's Diary” to a journalistic fact check.

Are reaction videos generally qualified as copyright infringement?

A southern German district court recently had to deal with this question.

Reaction videos are an established format on platforms such as YouTube and Twitch. Streamers or content creators react live to existing videos, comment on their content and critically examine them. While some reaction videos are more entertaining — such as with streamers such as MontanaBlack or Trymacs — there are also formats with a political-social approach, such as KuchenTV or Rezo. In addition, there are journalistic reaction videos in which a factual discussion or a fact-check takes place — including in our client's case at issue here.

Legal assessment

In principle, the use of copyrighted works requires one of the following principles:

1. Explicit consent from the copyright holder
2. A separate right of use
3. Legally permitted use (e.g. according to § 51 UrhG, the so-called citation right)

Individual creators, publishers, media companies or broadcasters grant certain groups of people or the general public the right to react to their content in the form of YouTube videos or live streams. Appropriate consents or rights of use can often be found in the video descriptions of the respective media libraries or directly in the description of the videos published on YouTube. In some cases, these admissions are subject to restrictions, such as the fact that a reaction may only take place after a certain time interval from the initial publication, for example 48 hours after publication. There are also restrictions on the platform on which the reaction may take place or be published. Such requirements must always be adhered to in order to ensure that reaction videos are carried out in a legally compliant manner. If a corresponding granting of rights of use or consent is not included in the video description, the rights holder must be contacted regularly to purchase a corresponding license. Particular care must be taken here, as appropriate agreements must be carefully reviewed so as not to lose the license again as a result of breach of contract or face claims for damages. In these cases, it is advisable to have the agreement reviewed by a lawyer. If there is neither consent nor a license agreement, only legal regulations can be considered as an exception to the requirement of a right of use or consent. Sections 50, 51 and 51a UrhG are particularly important for reaction videos. However, restraint is required in this regard as well. An amateur approach, including the use of AI, can result in significant claims for damages. As things stand, there is no claim of recourse against an AI that makes erroneous assessments. For this reason too, the legal review in such cases should be carried out by a lawyer.

The right of citation allows the use of third-party content if the user deals with the content of the original. However, courts regularly set strict standards and do not allow the full playback of a video, but only the targeted use of excerpts for explanation or criticism.

Background to the case

In November 2024, our client, a journalist and streamer, picked up a video by Alexander Raue, operator of the YouTube channel Landlord's Diary, in a reaction video and subjected it to a fact check.

While Raue originally focused on real estate investments, he has increasingly published “government-critical” content since 2022, although he no longer lives in Germany himself, but in South America. His videos were characterized by lurid titles, including:

• “Officially: 9/11 attack is a lie”
• “Government pays actors to demo against the right!”
• “Controversial: Is Bärbock's study a complete lie?”
• “Highest EU authority uncovers vaccine lies!”

In his video, our client critically examined this content and corrected numerous false allegations with verifiable facts. It wasn't the first time he had reviewed a video of Mr. Raue — but there had been no legal response in the past.

Warning and preliminary injunction

In November 2024, our client suddenly received a warning alleging a copyright infringement. Mr. Raue was also bothered by the fact that our client had ironically described him as a “loser's diary.”

After the deadline set in the warning letter, we were mandated and commented on behalf of our client. Surprisingly, a preliminary injunction was issued by the district court a short time later — without prior hearing. This decision related exclusively to the copyright issue, i.e. the reaction video. On the other hand, the request for expression was rejected, as was to be expected.

Misuse of rights by the opposing party

The process was characterized by several procedural deficiencies:

• Incomplete presentation of facts by the other party: The other party had deliberately not submitted our letter of reply to the court.
• Our client is not being heard: The court gave no opportunity to comment and issued the preliminary injunction without a hearing.
• Incorrect delivery of the order: The order was not sent to us as a legal representative, but directly to our client.

In addition to the copyright statements, we also had to complain of these procedural errors.

Decision of the court

As a result, the interim injunction was completely lifted, meaning that our client was no longer bound by the prohibitions contained therein. Unfortunately, in its decision, the court did not address the copyright issue, which is highly relevant for the area of reaction videos.

While we were preparing for a copyright foil battle, as this process offered the opportunity to present our basic arguments for dealing with reaction videos, the other side came up with a blunt dagger. For our client, the result is undoubtedly a complete success. Nevertheless, the copyright issue remains subject to detailed judicial clarification subject to the necessary differentiation.

Conclusion: What does this decision mean for streamers and YouTubers?

• Reaction videos are not infringing copyright per se — the legal classification depends on the respective context.
• Without consent or license, legal exceptions may intervene and make a reaction admissible under certain conditions. Nevertheless, this always requires careful legal review, which should be carried out regularly by a lawyer.
• Courts must carefully review applications for a preliminary injunction — a decision without prior hearing can result in serious procedural errors.
• Quick legal action can successfully ward off preliminary injunctions.

Protect your rights as a content creator

If you receive a warning due to a reaction video or are confronted with a preliminary injunction, DR. SARAFI lawyers will assist you with their experience in copyright and freedom of speech. We are consistently committed to ensuring that your rights as a streamer, YouTuber or journalist are protected — both out of court and in court. Contact us for a non-binding initial assessment.

For inquiries:
DR. SARAFI Rechtsanwälte
info@sarafi.de