Reaction videos: permissible quotation or infringement of rights? (Part 1)

Reaction videos are a trend that's hard to miss on social media. Influencers* take content – particularly videos – from other influencers, incorporate it into their own content and react to the original content. The formats are diverse, ranging from

• recreating recipes and
• discussing current events or cultural phenomena to
• arguments between influencers, where individual statements are singled out and criticised.

Reaction videos are often edited using a split-screen format, showing both the original video and a selfie video of the person commenting. However, this widely used technique is only permitted within strict limits. Failure to comply with these limits may constitute copyright infringement.

In addition to these copyright risks, reaction videos may also cross the line in terms of content. This is the case, for example, if they contain statements about other influencers that infringe their personality rights. These include, in particular, untrue allegations of fact and defamatory criticism. However, even reaction videos in which the person commenting limits themselves to expressing opinions may be unlawful. When it comes to statements made about competitors, different principles apply to professional influencers than to ordinary users.

In this two-part article, we will examine when reaction videos and the sharing of content among influencers cross the line into infringement of rights and what legal remedies are available to those affected. This first part of the article focuses on copyright law. In a follow-up article, we will outline the aspects of reaction videos relating to personality rights.

Reaction videos often constitute uses of a copyright-protected work that require a licence

Content on social media used in reaction videos is usually protected by copyright. Such embedded content may, for example, be protected as:

• literary works under section 2 (1) no. 1 German Copyright Act (e.g. in the case of reactions to speeches),
• musical works under section 2 (1) no. 2 German Copyright Act (e.g. in the case of album reactions),
• photographic works under section 2 (1) no. 5 German Copyright Act (e.g. in the case of comments on photographs),
• cinematographic works under section 2 (1) no. 6 German Copyright Act (e.g. in the case of reactions to trailers or music videos) or
• moving pictures under section 95 German Copyright Act.

The term "moving pictures" covers all sequences of images and sequences of images and sounds that do not constitute a cinematographic work. This accounts for most of the video content on social media. Common examples of moving pictures in reaction videos include extracts from reels, selfie videos, YouTube videos, docu-soaps or (scripted) reality formats.

Downloading this content constitutes reproduction (section 16 German Copyright Act). The same applies to subsequently embedding the content into the reaction video. Uploading the reaction video also constitutes making the works publicly available (section 19a German Copyright Act) and, where applicable, adaptation (section 23 German Copyright Act). The rights to reproduce, make available and adapt the content are reserved by the author. A licence is therefore generally required for such use within the permissible scope.

Reacting or copying? Under strict conditions, licence-free use may be permitted

In narrowly defined cases of so-called copyright exceptions, copyright law permits the use of works without the author having granted a licence. Of particular note here are the right to quote under section 51 German Copyright Act and pastiche under section 51a German Copyright Act.

Reaction videos may constitute a permissible quotation

The right to quote permits the reproduction, distribution and public communication of a published work for the purpose of quotation insofar as such use is justified to that extent by the particular purpose (section 51, first sentence, German Copyright Act). The authorisation to quote also includes the use of an illustration or other reproduction of the cited work, even if this is itself protected by copyright or a related right (section 51, third sentence, German Copyright Act). This may, in principle, also include reaction videos, as the courts have repeatedly held (see, for example, Cologne Regional Court, judgment of 23 October 2025 – 14 O 335/25; Frankenthal Regional Court, judgment of 20 May 2025 – 6 O 269/24 or Cologne Regional Court, decision of 6 September 2024 – 14 O 291/24). Whether a reaction video is permissible as a quotation under section 51 German Copyright Act depends very much on the specific nature of the video.

Is reacting allowed? There must be a legitimate purpose for the quotation

A quotation is only permissible if a work or an extract from a work is used in order to illustrate assertions, defend an opinion or allow an intellectual comparison between that work and the assertions of the user (CJEU, judgment of 29 July 2019 – C-516/17, margin no. 78). Consequently, there must be a legitimate purpose for the quotation. An influencer wishing to invoke the right to quote must therefore establish a direct and close link between the work being quoted and their own observations. This requirement is met, for example, where an influencer, in their reaction video, engages with the content of excerpts featuring another influencer and comments on them as part of their own expression of opinion (see Cologne Regional Court, decision of 6 September 2024 – 14 O 291/24). On the other hand, case law casts doubt on whether there has been sufficient intellectual comparison if the work is not commented on in substance but is merely displayed for humorous purposes (see Cologne Regional Court, judgment of 23 October 2025 – 14 O 335/25).

Furthermore, the content used must not be integrated into the reaction video in such a way that it is indistinguishable. Rather, the third party's content must be clearly identifiable as a quotation from another source.

Failure to cite sources is a common copyright pitfall online

Finally, a lawful quotation always requires an adequate citation of the source. In accordance with section 63 (2) German Copyright Act, the source of the reproduced content must be clearly indicated. This includes not only the author's name but also the title of the content reproduced and the source of that content in the form of the URL under which it was originally published. The citation must be formatted in such a way that the source can be easily identified. It must be positioned so that it is easy to find. In the case of videos on social media, for example, it must therefore be included in the caption of the reaction video and must not be hidden there amongst hashtags (see Frankenthal Regional Court, judgment of 20 May 2025 – 6 O 269/24).

Particular care must be taken here, as the person publishing the content is not necessarily also the author. In fact, it is not at all unusual, particularly among successful influencers, for them not to create their own content, but merely to appear in it. The author to be named in the source citation would then not be the influencer, but, for example, their photographer or videographer. In such cases, those citing the work cannot simply claim that the author is unknown. According to case law, influencers have a duty to enquire when creating reaction videos. Citers must then obtain the relevant information regarding the author's identity. To ensure that the source is correctly cited, they must, for example, ask the influencer sharing the content who the author is (see Cologne Regional Court, decision of 6 September 2024 – 14 O 291/24).

A commentary on the content does not usually constitute a pastiche

In addition to the principles governing the right to quote, classification of a reaction video as a pastiche within the meaning of section 51a German Copyright Act may also justify the unlicensed use of third-party content. In accordance with section 51a, first sentence, German Copyright Act, it is permitted to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public a published work for the purpose of, among other things, pastiche.

The concept of pastiche has its origins in European law (Article 5 InfoSoc Directive) and must therefore be interpreted autonomously under EU law. In a recently published decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that a pastiche must constitute an original creation which, whilst evoking an existing work, also exhibits clear differences from it (see CJEU, judgment of 14 April 2026 – C-590/23). The decisive factor is that the pastiche enters into an artistic or creative dialogue with the work it references. Various forms are conceivable here, such as a homage or a humorous or critical analysis.

However, reaction videos are often neither artistic creations nor do they engage in a genuine creative dialogue with the original work to which they are reacting. Instead, there is an engagement with the content rather than an artistic development of the original work. Overall, therefore, the reaction video is more akin to a quotation than to a pastiche. The CJEU's decision on the interpretation of the concept of pastiche provides only a superficial guide to determining what constitutes a pastiche. It is for the courts of the Member States to apply the definition provided by the CJEU to specific individual cases. Given the similarity to a quotation, it is reasonable to assume that reaction videos cannot fall under the concept of pastiche as defined by the CJEU within the meaning of section 51a German Copyright Act. For example, Cologne Regional Court ruled that a reaction video does not constitute a pastiche because it lacks the elements of humour, imitation or homage (see Cologne Regional Court, judgment of 23 October 2025 – 14 O 335/25).

Recognition of authorship and protection against distortion

Regardless of whether the use of the work in a reaction video is justified by a copyright exception, the author's moral rights must in any event be respected. Firstly, section 13 German Copyright Act requires the authorship to be acknowledged by indicating the name of the author of the content embedded in the reaction video. Furthermore, reaction videos must not reproduce a work in a distorted manner. In accordance with section 14 German Copyright Act, the author may – even if there is a justification – prohibit any distortion or other impairment of their work that is likely to jeopardise their legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work. The inclusion of deliberately misleading edited content in a reaction video could therefore be prohibited by the author on the grounds of distortion.

Please read part 2 of that article: Reaction videos: permissible quotation or infringement of rights?