urheberrechtsverletzung-abmahnung

/urheber-medienrecht:urheberrechtsverletzung-abmahnung

Purpose

The skill systematically examines an alleged copyright infringement (work quality, active legitimacy, infringing act, limitations) and drafts a cease-and-desist letter compliant with § 97a UrhG with a demand for cessation, damages calculation (triple method), claim to information and deadline. It also addresses file-sharing specifics and platform constellations (UrhDaG, DSA) as well as the response side (modified cease-and-desist declaration, negative declaratory action).

Inputs

• Work (type: photographic work / photograph, literary work, musical work, film work, software, work of applied art, database, etc.)
• Date of creation, first publication, if applicable author designation (§ 10 UrhG presumption)
• Ownership of rights (author / successor in title / exclusive licensee)
• Specific infringing act (reproduction, distribution, making available to the public within the meaning of § 19a UrhG, etc.) — with date, URL, screenshot evidence
• Size of infringer (private consumer within the meaning of § 97a III UrhG / commercial operator / platform)
• Prior license request / license offers (relevant for license analogy)
• Client's position: injured party (cease-and-desist letter sent) or recipient of a cease-and-desist letter (response)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides statutes (§§ 2, 15, 72, 97, 97a, 101, 102 UrhG; UrhDaG), the relevant BGH I. ZS case law on triple damages calculation, the ECJ line on originality (Cofemel, Brompton), file-sharing case law (Sommer unseres Lebens, BearShare, Loud) as well as MFM image fee tables for the license analogy. Drafter examines the infringement in legal opinion style and drafts the cease-and-desist letter with cease-and-desist declaration (pre-formulated + notice pursuant to § 97a II No. 4 UrhG). Reviewer checks the § 97a content requirements, the § 97a III cap and the right to choose the damages calculation.

Process

1. Work quality § 2 UrhG / related rights

• Subsumption under § 2 II UrhG (personal intellectual creation – ECJ line: "Cofemel" C-683/17, dejure.org; "Brompton" C-833/18, dejure.org).
• If originality is lacking: examination of related rights — photograph § 72 UrhG (50 years term of protection from publication), performing artists §§ 73 et seq., phonogram producers § 85, broadcasting organizations § 87, database producers § 87a (independent sui generis protection), film producers § 94.
• For works of applied art (industrial design): according to BGH "Geburtstagszug" (judgment of 13.11.2013 – I ZR 143/12, BGHZ 199, 52, dejure.org) no increased requirements any more; if applicable interface with design law (gewerblicher-rechtsschutz).
• Term of protection § 64 UrhG: 70 years post mortem auctoris; if applicable check public domain.

2. Active legitimacy

• Author § 7 UrhG (natural person, if applicable § 10 UrhG presumption in case of author designation).
• Co-authors § 8 UrhG (joint creation, joint ownership).
• Legal successor by inheritance (§ 28 UrhG) or by granting exclusive rights of use (§ 31 III UrhG).
• Exclusive licensee has independent standing to sue; a non-exclusive licensee only in procedural capacity (BGH line [unverifiziert]).

3. Act of infringement §§ 15–24 UrhG

• Reproduction § 16 UrhG (including transient RAM reproduction).
• Distribution § 17 UrhG (exhaustion doctrine in the EEA).
• Making available to the public § 19a UrhG (online provision); decisive CJEU "Svensson" (C-466/12, dejure.org), "GS Media" (C-160/15, dejure.org), "Renckhoff" (C-161/17, dejure.org), "YouTube/Cyando" (C-682/18, C-683/18, dejure.org).
• Broadcasting right § 20 UrhG.
• Right of adaptation/alteration § 23 UrhG (with § 23 II UrhG 2021 amendment to the "sufficient distance" doctrine).

4. Limitations §§ 44a et seq. UrhG

• § 51 UrhG quotation (evidentiary function required, source attribution § 63 UrhG).
• § 51a UrhG caricature/parody/pastiche (implementation of Art. 17 VII DSM Directive, in force 2021) — protection also for UGC with transformative use.
• § 53 UrhG private copying (not from an obviously unlawful source, § 53 I 1 UrhG).

5. Legal consequences §§ 97 et seq. UrhG

• Cessation § 97 I UrhG — independent of fault, risk of repetition indicated by the infringement.
• Damages § 97 II UrhG in case of fault — threefold calculation method (option of the injured party):

Method	Norm	Remark
Lost profit	§ 252 BGB in conjunction with § 97 II 1 UrhG	Rarely practicable without market data
Infringer's profit	§ 97 II 2 UrhG	"Share of overhead costs" case law: only exclusively variable costs deductible (BGH, judgment of 02.11.2000 – I ZR 246/98, BGHZ 145, 366, dejure.org)
License analogy	§ 97 II 3 UrhG	For photographs as a rule MFM image fee tables, possibly 100% surcharge for missing attribution of authorship (BGH line [unverifiziert])

• Removal § 98 UrhG (destruction, recall).
• Information § 101 UrhG (manufacturer / distribution channel / quantities / prices), § 101 IX in particular provider information subject to judicial reservation (TMG interface).
• Statute of limitations § 102 UrhG: 3 years from knowledge (§§ 195, 199 BGB), in case of unjust enrichment 10/30 years (§ 102 sentence 2 in conjunction with § 852 BGB).

6. Warning letter § 97a UrhG

Content requirements § 97a II UrhG (all four mandatory, otherwise ineffective, § 97a IV UrhG right of recovery):

1. Name or company of the injured party,
2. precise description of the legal infringement,
3. Itemization of the asserted payment claims (injunctive relief claim + damages),
4. Note, insofar as a pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration is enclosed, whether and to what extent it goes beyond the infringement complained of.

§ 97a III UrhG cost cap: On first warning letter to a natural person, who does not act for commercial/self-employed purposes, and in the case of a simple infringement outside of business operations, a subject-matter value of EUR 1,000 applies to the injunctive relief claim (attorney's fees capped accordingly). Exception only in the case of an "unreasonable" result.

File-sharing specifics:

• Perpetrator liability of the connection holder: factual presumption, rebuttable by secondary burden of proof (BGH "Loud", judgment of 30.03.2017 – I ZR 19/16, GRUR 2017, 1233, dejure.org).
• Family connections: no general duty of instruction of adult family members (BGH "BearShare", judgment of 08.01.2014 – I ZR 169/12, BGHZ 200, 76, dejure.org).
• WLAN private individual: no duty of clarification required in the case of standard configuration (BGH "Sommer unseres Lebens", judgment of 12.05.2010 – I ZR 121/08, BGHZ 185, 330, dejure.org; subsequently refined).

UrhDaG (platform constellation): In the case of infringement on large service providers within the meaning of § 2 UrhDaG, primarily platform liability pursuant to §§ 1–10 UrhDaG, complaint mechanism § 14 UrhDaG, pastiche exception § 5 UrhDaG (interface § 51a UrhG).

7. Response options (if the client is the recipient of the warning letter)

• Modified cease-and-desist declaration (adjustment of scope, contractual penalty, area of application).
• Protective brief to the ZAV/court to defend against a preliminary injunction.
• Negative declaratory action § 256 ZPO — risk: cost consequences if the warning letter was justified.
• § 97a IV UrhG recovery in the case of an invalid warning letter.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

• § 2 UrhG (concept of a work)
• § 15 UrhG (exploitation rights)
• § 19a UrhG (making available to the public)
• § 23 UrhG (adaptation/recasting)
• § 51 UrhG (quotation)
• § 51a UrhG (caricature, parody, pastiche)
• § 72 UrhG (protection of photographs)
• § 97 UrhG (injunctive relief and damages claim)
• § 97a UrhG (warning letter)
• § 101 UrhG (right to information, in particular para. IX provider information)
• § 102 UrhG (limitation period)
• UrhDaG (Copyright Service Provider Act)
• Art. 17 DSM Directive (EU) 2019/790

Commentaries

• Specht-Riemenschneider, in: Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 7th ed. 2022, § 97 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 97a marginal no. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert – aktuelle Auflage prüfen]
• v. Wolff, in: Wandtke/Bullinger, Praxiskommentar Urheberrecht, 6th ed. 2022, § 97 UrhG marginal no. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert]
• Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 6th ed. 2020, § 97 UrhG marginal no. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert]
• BeckOK UrhG/Reber, as of 2024, § 97 marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law

1. BGH, judgment of 17.06.1992 – I ZR 107/90, BGHZ 119, 20 = GRUR 1993, 55 – "Tchibo/Rolex II" (threefold calculation of damages: right to choose between the three calculation methods), dejure.org
2. BGH, judgment of 02.11.2000 – I ZR 246/98, BGHZ 145, 366 = GRUR 2001, 329 – "Gemeinkostenanteil", dejure.org
3. BGH, judgment of 12.05.2010 – I ZR 121/08, BGHZ 185, 330 = GRUR 2010, 633 – "Sommer unseres Lebens" (file sharing), dejure.org
4. BGH, judgment of 08.01.2014 – I ZR 169/12, BGHZ 200, 76 = GRUR 2014, 657 – "BearShare", dejure.org
5. BGH, judgment of 30.03.2017 – I ZR 19/16, GRUR 2017, 1233 – "Loud", dejure.org
6. BGH, judgment of 13.11.2013 – I ZR 143/12, BGHZ 199, 52 = GRUR 2014, 175 – "Geburtstagszug", dejure.org
7. BGH, judgment of 15.11.2012 – I ZR 74/12, GRUR 2013, 511 – "Morpheus" (duty of supervision in the case of minors), dejure.org
8. CJEU, judgment of 12.09.2019 – Case C-683/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721 – Cofemel, dejure.org
9. CJEU, judgment of 11.06.2020 – Case C-833/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:461 – Brompton Bicycle, dejure.org
10. CJEU, judgment of 22.06.2021 – Cases C-682/18, C-683/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:503 – YouTube/Cyando, dejure.org
11. CJEU, judgment of 16.07.2009 – Case C-5/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465 – Infopaq (concept of a work), dejure.org

Output format

GUTACHTEN — Urheberrechtsverletzung
Werk: <Werkbezeichnung>     Verletzungshandlung: <Art, URL, Datum>
Mandant: <Rechtsinhaber / Verletzter / Empfänger Abmahnung>

I. Sachverhalt (knapp)
II. Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
     – Verletzung: [ja / nein / streitig]
     – Empfehlung: [Abmahnung / mod. UE / neg. Feststellungsklage / Schutzschrift]

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Werkqualität / verwandtes Schutzrecht
    2. Schutzdauer
    3. Aktivlegitimation
    4. Verletzungshandlung §§ 15–24 UrhG
    5. Schranken §§ 44a ff. UrhG (insb. §§ 51, 51a, 53)
    6. Rechtsfolgen §§ 97 ff. UrhG
       a) Unterlassung
       b) Schadensersatz (dreifache Berechnung – Vergleich aller drei Methoden)
       c) Auskunft / Beseitigung
       d) Verjährung § 102 UrhG

V. Abmahnung nach § 97a UrhG (Entwurf)
    – Inhaltsanforderungen § 97a II UrhG (vier Punkte)
    – ggf. § 97a III UrhG-Deckelung (Verbraucher)
    – Vorformulierte Unterlassungserklärung mit Hinweis

VI. Risiken / offene Punkte
    🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>
    Fristkalender: <§ 102 UrhG-Verjährung; Reaktionsfrist; Schutzschrift>

VII. Quellenverzeichnis

Template for a cease-and-desist letter

<Anwaltsbriefkopf>

An <Verletzer>
<Datum>

In Sachen <Mandant> ./. <Verletzer>
wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung — Abmahnung nach § 97a UrhG

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

I. Anzeige der Vertretung
   Wir vertreten Herrn/Frau <Mandant> ([§ 97a II Nr. 1 UrhG]).
   Eine ordnungsgemäße Vollmacht ist beigefügt.

II. Rechtsverletzung ([§ 97a II Nr. 2 UrhG])
    Sie haben am <Datum> unter <URL> das Werk <konkrete Bezeichnung>
    unserer Mandantschaft ohne Erlaubnis öffentlich zugänglich gemacht
    (§ 19a UrhG). Beleg: <Screenshot, Anlage K1>.
    Das Werk genießt Schutz als <Werkart> nach § <Norm> UrhG.

III. Ansprüche ([§ 97a II Nr. 3 UrhG])
     1. Unterlassungsanspruch nach § 97 I UrhG
        Gegenstandswert: <Wert> EUR
        [bei Verbraucher: Gegenstandswert gemäß § 97a III UrhG 1.000 EUR]
     2. Schadensersatzanspruch nach § 97 II UrhG
        Lizenzanalogie nach <MFM 20XX>: <Betrag> EUR
        [Zuschlag 100 % wegen fehlender Urhebernennung: <Betrag> EUR]
     3. Aufwendungsersatz § 97a III UrhG / RVG
        Anwaltsgebühren: <Betrag> EUR
     ─────────────────────────────────
     Gesamt: <Betrag> EUR

IV. Forderung
    Wir fordern Sie auf, bis zum <Datum +14 Tage>
      a) die beigefügte strafbewehrte Unterlassungserklärung
         unterzeichnet zurückzusenden,
      b) den Schadensersatzbetrag i.H.v. <…> EUR und
      c) die Aufwendungserstattung i.H.v. <…> EUR
    auf unser Konto <…> zu zahlen.

V. Hinweis nach § 97a II Nr. 4 UrhG
   Die vorformulierte Unterlassungserklärung [geht / geht nicht] über
   die abgemahnte konkrete Rechtsverletzung hinaus, da <…>.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
<Anwalt>

Anlagen: K1 Screenshot, K2 Vorformulierte Unterlassungserklärung, K3 Vollmacht

Risks / typical errors

• Missing content requirements under § 97a II UrhG → ineffective cease-and-desist letter → § 97a IV UrhG reimbursement claim of the person warned.
• Flat-rate cap under § 97a III in the case of a business or, conversely, full fee in the case of a consumer → infringement of § 43a BRAO.
• Damages asserted under only one method without explaining the injured party's right to choose.
• Failure to observe the CJEU threshold of originality (Cofemel/Brompton) in the case of works of applied art.
• Failure to observe the limitation under § 51a UrhG (pastiche) in the case of UGC and memes.
• File-sharing connection holder automatically treated as the perpetrator — examine secondary burden of proof.
• Platform scenario cease-and-desist letter issued without review under the UrhDaG → wrong addressee of the claim.
• Statute of limitations under § 102 UrhG overlooked — if known for more than 3 years, the action is inadmissible.
• License analogy without a data basis (MFM, court-recognized license rates) — amount in dispute not sustainable.