Researchgate unterliegt im Rechtsstreit mit Elsevier

From Google's English:  "The Munich I District Court has sentenced the Researchgate network of researchers to refrain from making scientific journal articles from publications by Elsevier Verlag and the American Chemical Society (ACS) accessible in the future. The articles in question were shared on the platform without the consent of the publisher.... According to a press release from the Munich I Regional Court , numerous specialist articles that are the intellectual property of publishers have been made available on the platform. Several scientific publishers have sued against this practice and have applied for a ban on publication on the platform. While the court prohibited the distribution of the publisher's publications through Researchgate, it denied the publishers a claim for damages. Behind the lawsuit is the "Coalition for Responsible Sharing" (CfRS), which was founded by several scientific publishers in 2017 and to which the plaintiffs Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) belong, according to a CfRS statement . The initiative, founded by a total of five publishers (in addition to Elsevier and ACS, these are Brill, Wiley and Wolters Kluwer), pursues the common goal of preventing what they consider to be inadmissible distribution of articles from the publishers' trade journals. A total of 13 scientific publishers, including specialist societies and non-profit companies, now belong to the CfRS. The primary goal of the CfRS is the researcher network Researchgate, which the Coalition estimates makes more than four million articles illegally available on its platform. In parallel with the legal process, Elsevier and the ACS have taken further steps to hold Researchgate accountable. In October , the platform received a request to remove around 200,000 articles from the two publishers from the website . Researchgate has received multiple takedown requests since the Coalition was formed.... With its judgment, the court recognized the publishers' claims for injunctive relief , but rejected the claim for damages on the grounds that in this case, according to Section 10 of the Copyright Act (UrhG), there are higher requirements for proof of ownership...."