In a judgment dated 23 November 2023, the Regional Court of Hannover ordered the defendant to pay a contractual penalty of € 5,001 and other costs, providing important clarification on the consequences of violating a Declaration to Cease and Desist. The ruling underscores the importance of fully complying with contractual obligations in copyright disputes. Attorney Robert Fechner had the privilege of representing the photographer in this case.
We believe this verdict is another strong message in favour of copyright holders, affirming that agreements to remove unauthorised use of creative works must be honoured in full.
Case overview
In 2023, the plaintiff (professional photographer) discovered that their photograph had been used without permission on a corporate website. After being formally warned, the company agreed in June 2021 to cease use of the image and delete all existing copies. They also accepted to pay a contractual penalty of €5,001 in case of violation.
Despite this, the image remained accessible on the company’s server via a direct URL. The photographer commissioned a third-party documentation of the violation and demanded payment of the agreed penalty.
Summary of the court’s decision
The court ruled fully in favour of the plaintiff with the following key points:
- Even if the image was only accessible via a direct URL, the court held that the company had failed to comply with its obligation to delete all copies, not merely hide them from public view.
- The defendant argued that the image wasn’t “publicly accessible” in the legal sense since it could only be accessed via a long and specific URL. The court rejected this argument, emphasising that contractual obligations went beyond public display to include complete deletion, especially when, as in this case, the defendant had explicitly agreed to delete the content.
- The court found the penalty reasonable and enforceable.
Verdict (Landgericht Hannover 13 O 108/23)
The defendant was ordered to pay:
a) €5,001 as a contractual penalty
b) €1,101.94 for legal fees incurred during the enforcement and €112.05 for documentation and evidence collection. Legal and documentation costs were considered valid and proportional.
d) Statutory interest on the awarded amounts
Another important point is that the court rejected the defendant’s counterclaim, which sought reimbursement of their own legal costs on the basis that the original warning was allegedly unjustified.
Important takeaways
From our perspective, this case highlights several crucial legal aspects. Above all, it demonstrates that a cease-and-desist declaration must be accompanied by the complete deletion of the relevant content — a partial or merely technical implementation is not sufficient if the opposing party has committed to deletion. It is irrelevant whether the image was “hidden” or the URL was not indexed — a violation still exists. As long as the image remains on the server, it has, logically, not been deleted.
This case again reaffirms us that the courts will uphold agreed-upon penalties, particularly when clearly defined and proportionate. Therefore, if you’re a photographer or creative professional and someone used your work illegally, our firm is here to help you protect what’s rightfully yours. DEPICTA LEGAL is proud to stand up for creators whose rights are too often overlooked in the digital world. This case demonstrates again that legal remedies are not only available but fully enforceable. Don’t forget to take a look at some other cases: depicta.legal/case-law.