What influencers and content creators need to know about protecting their digital creations and revenue streams.
If you are a content creator, photographer, or creative professional, your digital portfolio is one of your most valuable assets. Yet protecting your work on social media can be a constant and frustrating challenge.
Finding out that your content has been taken and shared without permission (whether a photograph reposted on Instagram, a video reused on TikTok, a graphic copied on Pinterest, or a clip used on YouTube) can affect your reputation, income, and control over your own work.
For years, protecting your work has often meant facing complex reporting systems, providing extensive documentation, or receiving no response at all. However, the legal setting in Europe is changing.
A landmark decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court (File No. 2-06 O 444/25) has set important limits on how platforms handle copyright complaints. The case involved a professional architectural photographer and Meta (Instagram) after one of his premium images was used without authorisation by a verified account with more than 400,000 followers.
The court’s decision, grounded in the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), provides important guidance for anyone seeking to protect creative work online. As an official out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) body certified under the DSA, ADROIT highlights the four key principles from this ruling that are reshaping copyright protection across social media platforms.
Precedents Redefining the Protection of Your Work
1. No Obligation to Use Platform-Specific Reporting Tools
Historically, major social media platforms (including Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and others) have required rights holders to use complex internal reporting systems that can be cumbersome and, at times, appear designed to discourage complaints.
The German court rejected this approach in unequivocal terms. It held that a rights holder is under no obligation to rely exclusively on rigid, platform-specific reporting forms. A formal written notice (whether by registered post, email, or through a recognised dispute resolution body such as ADROIT) that clearly identifies the allegedly infringing content and sets out the essential facts is sufficient to trigger the platform’s legal obligations. A platform cannot refuse to process or assess a valid notice merely because it was not submitted through its preferred reporting mechanism.
2. No “Foreign Account” Loophole
Meta attempted to avoid responsibility by arguing that, because the allegedly infringing account operated in Arabic and was directed primarily at an audience outside Europe, EU courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
The court rejected this argument, significantly reducing the geographic barriers faced by creators seeking to protect their rights. It recognised that social media platforms operate across borders, with built-in translation features and a global audience, meaning that unauthorised use of creative work on a foreign account can still have direct consequences for a creator’s reputation, commercial opportunities, and professional relationships in their home country.
The key takeaway is simple: if your professional standing is impacted locally, you may still be able to rely on legal protection, even when the infringement originates abroad.
3. Platform Responsibility Begins Upon Notification
Once a platform receives a valid notice regarding allegedly infringing content, it can no longer simply disregard the complaint. Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), online platforms and hosting providers must act promptly when they become aware of illegal content, and failure to do so may lead to legal consequences.
The era of platforms portraying themselves as merely “passive, neutral intermediaries” is increasingly changing. The DSA establishes a more active responsibility model, requiring platforms to maintain effective systems for receiving notices, assessing reported content, and taking appropriate action where illegal activity is identified.
4. No Elaborate Burden of Proof for the Initial Notice
The platform argued that the photographer had not provided enough documentary evidence of ownership in their initial complaint. The Regional Court clarified an important point about Article 16 of the DSA: creators do not need to submit a perfect legal file or exhaustive proof of ownership to trigger the notice process.
What matters is that the notice is sufficiently clear and detailed for the platform to understand the alleged infringement and identify the relevant content. If the platform has doubts about ownership or requires further information, it must take appropriate steps to assess the situation, rather than simply dismissing the complaint. Creators are not expected to act as private investigators before their notice can even be considered.
In perspective: Instead of placing the entire burden on individual creators, it recognises that platforms also have a role to play in assessing infringement claims and taking appropriate action to protect creative work, and can thus be expected to confront the alleged infringer about the ownership rights.
What if a Platform Ignores Your Claim? How ADROIT Can Help
Even with stronger legal protections, taking on a major platform alone can be a complex and frustrating process. ADROIT provides an accessible and independent alternative to lengthy court proceedings for anyone seeking to resolve disputes with online platforms.
As an officially certified Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement (ODS) body under Article 21 of the DSA, ADROIT helps resolve disputes between users and online platforms in a fair and efficient manner. Our decisions are non-binding, meaning that parties retain their right to pursue judicial action if they choose, while platforms are required to participate in the process in good faith. The service is free for creators, and each case is assessed by independent legal experts.
Your creative work deserves protection. When platforms fail to properly address your concerns, ADROIT provides a trusted pathway to have your case reviewed and your voice heard.
About us – Alternative Dispute Resolution of Information Technologies