- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries
- within Cannabis & Hemp, Immigration and Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
What Copyright Owners and Creative Companies Need to Know About the Eleventh Circuit's Athos Overseas v. YouTube Decision, and How the Supreme Court's Cox Communications Case Could Shift the Ground
The Eleventh Circuit's decision inAthos Overseas Ltd. Corp. v. YouTube, Inc.is the most recent consequential case interpreting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") safe‑harbor provisions.
The DMCA is a 1998 U.S. law that updated copyright rules for the internet age and famously created a notice‑and‑takedown system while giving internet service providers and platforms safe‑harbor protections when users post infringing content.
For creative‑industry clients, the message behind theAthosdecision is clear: the DMCA remains a notice‑driven system, and courts continue to resist efforts to require platforms to become proactive copyright police. It also arrives at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is reconsidering the boundaries of copyright liability inCox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case that could reshape the contributory liability landscape for internet service providers and platforms alike.
What isAthos Overseas v. YouTubeabout?
Athos, which owns a library of classic Mexican and Latin American films, sued YouTube for hosting unauthorized uploads on its platform. In its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, YouTube invoked the DMCA safe-harbor protection under 17 U.S.C. 512(c). This rule protects platforms from liability if they maintain a reasonable repeat‑infringer policy, lack actual or "red‑flag" knowledge of specific infringements, expeditiously remove infringing content when notified, and do not receive a direct financial benefit from infringement they can control.
On appeal, Athos did not dispute that YouTube swiftly removed every URL identified in its valid DMCA takedown notices. Athos argued instead that YouTube's tools and functionalities - including technology that generates digital identifiers for uploaded videos known as "hashes" - gave it actual or red-flag knowledge ofadditionalinfringing copies, or YouTube was otherwise willfully blind to such copies. Athos also claimed that YouTube had the right and ability to control uploaded infringing works on its platform, resulting in direct financial benefit from these works.
Athos' arguments essentially relied on the premise that "once it notifies YouTube of its ownership of a given copyright and identifies a single location...YouTube then has a video hash sufficient for it to locate additional infringing material on the site." In other words, Athos demanded that YouTube hunt and take down every allegedly infringing video upload for a given work "on behalf of and without any input from a user other than a single DMCA takedown request."
The Eleventh Circuit soundly rejected these arguments.
The court adopted the Second and Ninth Circuits' "specificity" requirement as held inViacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), andUMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013). This requirement demands actual or subjective knowledge of specific infringing material, or red‑flag knowledge of specific material whose infringing nature is objectively obvious. General awareness that infringement occurs on the platform is insufficient.
As an initial matter, YouTube's copyright management tools were designed to require the input and management of copyright owners, as they have the knowledge and authority to determine what should happen to their copyrighted works. To prevent misuse of these tools, YouTube generally limits access and operation of these tools based on a user's demonstrated needs, availability of resources and knowledge of YouTube's copyright system. YouTube offered these tools to Athos subject to its user agreement, but Athos declined.
In addition, YouTube's copyright management tools were unable to distinguish between instances of fair use, licensed uploads, or non‑infringing clips. At most, YouTube's tools – which YouTube did not operate automatically nor universally – could produce a list of leads for potential infringement, but not legal determinations. Without additional analysis on YouTube's part, this falls short of actual knowledge of infringement.
As for red-flag knowledge, Athos asserted that a takedown notice submitted to YouTube inherently required it to remove additional infringing works that were not listed in that notice. The court bluntly stated that this was "not a plausible or workable reading of the DMCA," which merely requires takedown of infringing material identified in the notice.
Finally, the court acknowledged that a characterization of willful blindness can, in theory, defeat safe‑harbor protection. But the court nonetheless held that a platform is not willfully blind merely because it does not proactively investigate potential infringement. Indeed, the court correctly asserted that the DMCA expressly prohibits conditioning the safe-harbor protection on monitoring for infringing works under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512(m).
With respect to Athos' claim that YouTube's right and ability to control infringing works on its platform resulted in a direct financial benefit from these works, the court was quick to shut it down. As it pertains to the DMCA, the "right and ability to control" required substantial influence over users or inducement of infringement; the mere ability to remove users or content as well as enforce policies was insufficient. YouTube simply could not dictate what users posted, and instances where YouTube did exercise control constituted a small fraction of works available on its platform.
How the U.S. Supreme Court's pending ruling inCox Communicationscould shift the ground underAthos
Although the Eleventh Circuit ultimately affirmed YouTube's position, the U.S. Supreme Court's pending decision inCox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment– a billion‑dollar contributory infringement case – could reshape the legal landscape in ways that directly affect the reasoning inAthos. There, Cox was held liable for contributory infringement for failing to terminate repeat infringers on its network. The case centers on what level of knowledge and control triggers contributory liability for internet service providers.
Although Cox focuses on liability and not the DMCA's safe-harbor, the issues presented overlap. If the Court narrows contributory liability by holding that internet service providers are not liable absent clear, specific knowledge and direct control, this could reinforce the Eleventh Circuit's approach by strengthening the specificity requirement for knowledge, supporting the notion that automated tools do not create legal knowledge, and providing further insulation to platforms from liability for user behavior.
If the Court expands contributory liability, however, plaintiffs may have better grounds to argue that platforms like YouTube have "knowledge" through hash‑matching or automated detection, thereby forcing courts to revisit whether algorithmic curation and similar tools constitute "substantial influence." The boundary between the DMCA safe-harbor and contributory liability could narrow as a result. Even so, Sec. 512(m)'s no‑monitoring rule would remain a statutory barrier – but plaintiffs would gain new arguments.
Conclusion: Copyright Owners and Creative Companies Must Continue to Provide Specific Notices to Platforms
The Eleventh Circuit's decision inAthos Overseas v. YouTubeis a strong reaffirmation of the DMCA's core principles: specificity, notice‑and‑takedown, and the rejection of proactive monitoring obligations. It also provides one of the clearest judicial explanations to date of how modern platform technologies interact with Sec. 512(c)'s safe-harbor protection.
The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision inCox Communicationsmay reshape contributory liability doctrine; should the Court narrow - not expand - internet service providers' liability, then theAthosdecision and YouTube's practices will be even more firmly grounded.
For copyright owners, the message is clear: the DMCA remains a notice‑driven system, and automation does not shift the burden. For platforms, the opinion underscores the importance of maintaining robust takedown procedures, documenting repeat‑infringer policies, and avoiding conduct that could be construed as inducement or substantial influence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
