Mechanisms for resolving online copyright disputes: a comparative analysis of EU and common law systems in search of an optimal model
Dominik Światkowski
Abstract
The article compares mechanisms for resolving online copyright disputes concerning user-uploaded content in selected EU and common law systems. It examines the EU standard under Article 17(9) of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM) (situated within the broader EU digital acquis, including the Digital Services Act, and relevant CJEU case law) and its national implementations in Germany and France, and contrasts these with notice-and-takedown under safe harbour regimes in the USA and Australia. Applying a uniform set of evaluative criteria—accessibility and efficiency (timeframes, costs and transparency), independence and impartiality in decision-making, safeguards for lawful uses and anti-abuse measures—the article identifies two overarching paradigms. The EU model treats disputes primarily through a complaint-and-redress mechanism centred on expeditious handling, free access and human review at the complaint stage, with Germany adding ex ante lawful-use safeguards and anti-abuse tools, and France complementing the internal stage with an external review pathway before Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique. The US and Australian systems follow a safe harbour notice-and-takedown paradigm shaped by liability incentives for rapid takedown, with safeguards for lawful uses and abuse control operating largely ex post through counter-notice and misrepresentation rules. Australia remains close to the US model but improves accessibility through statutory forms and a ‘substantial compliance’ standard. The analysis develops a set of regulatory choices for improving online copyright dispute resolution. Building on the comparative findings, the article proposes a hybrid model combining enforceable time limits, standardized submissions and information duties, an accessible and functionally independent external review component, and anti-abuse measures combining liability for misrepresentation with proportionate procedural consequences for repeated misuse.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.