Online text theft, missing imprints, and illegally used images are often the reason for expensive warnings, reports Niklas Plutte, a specialist lawyer and expert in internet, trademark, and copyright law. In the first part of his interview with Socialmedia-Blog.Net, he talks about the Facebook Like button and legal problems with stock archives.

Mr. Plutte, what are the most common reasons for warnings that website operators (in Germany) currently receive?

Since there is no register or similar for warnings, there are no verifiable values ​​for the actual number of warnings. Based on our case numbers, however, I suspect that violations of competition law and copyright law are among the most common reasons for warnings issued by website operators, followed by trademark infringements.

The warnings under competition law range from “classic” errors in the imprint and misleading advertising to violations of very specific regulations, such as the Textile Labeling Ordinance or the Price Indication Ordinance. The latter mainly affects shop operators, who have to observe a very extensive legal framework that often changes due to case law or legislation.

In the area of ​​copyright, website operators are primarily struggling with image rights violations, but also with the use of texts or designs. While in the past, warnings were mainly issued for typical “image theft”, i.e., the use of other people’s images via copy & paste, the dangers are now more hidden. In recent years, for example, we have processed hundreds of warnings for supposedly “royalty-free” (free) photos from stock archives that were obtained legally but were not provided with sufficient copyright information by the user.

There is a risk of trademark infringement on the Internet, for example, in the domain area, when selling goods or placing AdWords. Website operators should, of course, always be careful when choosing brand names and company names. Even if no trademark is registered for their products, there is a risk of warnings if third parties have already registered identical or confusingly similar trademarks for the same products. In the second case in particular, I find in my advice that many companies are not even aware that trademark infringements are also possible between similar brands – in fact, this case is likely to be warned far more often than the crude 1:1 adoption of an existing trademark.

What should I do as a website operator if I receive a warning? What should I not do?

Under no circumstances should the warning be ignored. If it was justified, the website operator could face much higher costs if the opponent asserts the claims in court, e.g., utilizing an interim injunction or lawsuit. Such consequences can be limited or even completely averted through specialist advice. Anyone who receives a warning should, therefore, always seek advice from a specialist law firm. We offer those seeking legal advice a free initial assessment of their case. Data protection advocates have been criticizing the Facebook Like button for years.

Under current law, is it sufficient for a website operator to indicate the use of the Like button in the imprint?

Do the standard texts generated by sites such as e-recht offer sufficient protection against warnings in this case?

The legal situation surrounding the Like button – as well as social media plugins from other providers – has not yet been finally clarified by the courts. The main criticism is the passing on of personal data (IP address) to US providers without sufficient consent from users. Previous attempts to approach Facebook directly or via users of the Like button have not been successful. As long as the legal situation is not finally clarified, I am of the opinion that the risk of warnings for website operators is relatively low. Nevertheless, further developments should be monitored, especially since some courts have recently moved to classify certain data protection violations as competition violations that can be warned against.

What about image databases or stock archives?

Is it enough if I refer to the place of origin of my images (and the author’s) in my imprint, or should I also list the name of the author and the database under each image?

Am I obliged to put a link to the image in the stock archive?

There is no general answer to whether, how, and where photos from stock archives must be provided with copyright notices, as the stock photo providers sometimes have very different requirements in their licensing terms. In my opinion, the only safe way to do this is to add the copyright notice directly to the image file, if necessary, manually using a photo editing program such as Photoshop. This ensures that the copyright notice is recognizable in every display, including on mobile phones. For example.

If you want to share the stock photo on a social network, you also have to make sure whether and, if so, how it can be used. Some providers offer special social media versions of the images, e.g., Fotolia. However, the use of such photos on social networks is sometimes prohibited because the networks require the user to grant them a sublicense in the form of a simple right of use to be able to display the image on the platform at all. So, you often cannot avoid looking at the license conditions of the stock photo provider.