We are pleased to share another positive outcome for our client in a copyright infringement case before the Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln).
In its judgment dated July 3, 2025 (Case No. 14 O 475/24), the court ruled that the claimant is entitled to a contractual penalty. This penalty is applicable because the photograph was not removed from the website.
The verdict reinforces that failing to remove the photograph after receiving a cease-and-desist notice can lead to significant financial consequences for the infringer. This also serves as an important position on protecting the copyrights of photographers and other creators.
What was the case about?
Our client is a professional photographer who licenses their works online. The defendant, a company operating a website, used our client’s photograph without permission. Following a warning letter, the Defendant accepted and signed a cease-and-desist declaration with a contractual penalty.
The Defendant undertook:
- to cease making the photograph publicly available without consent, particularly to remove it from the online publication (website’s server),
- and to pay a contractual penalty of EUR 5,001 for each culpable breach,
- as well as to destroy all and any copies and to cease storing them
The claimant subsequently discovered that the photograph was not removed and was still publicly accessible.
What did the court decide?
The claimant was entitled to a claim for payment of a contractual penalty, which was agreed as a fixed sum in accordance with §339 BGB (German Civil Code). In view of the claimant’s arguments, the contractual penalty was due because the photograph in question had not been removed from the website.
For this reason, the defendant was required to pay additional pre-trial court costs. The court found the calculation of these costs, based on the German Lawyers’ Fees Act (RVG), to be undisputed. Additionally, the claimant was entitled to reimbursement for the costs associated with the documentation.
The court ruled specifically that:
- The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant a contractual penalty of €5,001.00, together with interest at a rate of five percentage points above the base rate.
- The defendant must reimburse pre-trial legal costs in the amount of €885.80, together with interest five percentage points above the base rate.
- The defendant must cover documentation costs (€95).
- The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
The jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Cologne is based on the parties’ agreement in the Declaration to Cease and Desist.
Why is this decision important?
This judgment emphasises several important principles:
- Once signed, the Declaration to Cease and Desist establishes a binding contractual obligation.
- Failure to remove content from the website server triggers liability.
- In Germany, contractual penalties are effectively enforced by the courts.
From the perspective of a photographer, this type of judgment holds practical value. In addition to the penalty, the court awarded legal fees and documentation costs. This alleviates the financial burden on the rights holder when enforcing their rights. For photographers who rely on licensing models, predictability is essential. Decisions like this confirm that unauthorised use has clear financial consequences, which helps to uphold the overall value of licensed content.
Cases like this send a clear market signal: using images without permission is not “low risk.” Over time, this enhances compliance across the market.
What does this mean in practice?
If you use images online, you should ensure that:
- You have a valid license
- You comply with all license terms
- You fully remove content when required
If you are a photographer, this case confirms that:
- Your rights are enforceable in practice
- Contractual penalties are a reliable mechanism
- Courts will support well-documented claims
Conclusion
This judgment is another example of how German courts actively protect copyright holders and enforce compliance with cease-and-desist obligations.
For photographers, this is not only a legal victory but also a practical confirmation that their work, licensing model, and enforcement efforts receive support from the courts.