In its ruling of 10.09.2024 (case no. I ZR 99/23), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the installation of a photo wallpaper in a hotel room does not constitute a reproduction of the work depicted on it.
In doing so, it confirmed the case law of the lower courts and provided more legal certainty.
Background to the cases
A photographer who had discovered her motifs on photographic wallpaper in the rooms of hotels and tennis centers had sued in three proceedings.
She saw this as a copyright infringement and demanded compensation, information and reimbursement of warning costs.
The local court dismissed the claims.
The plaintiff’s appeals before the Düsseldorf Regional Court were also unsuccessful (Düsseldorf Regional Court, judgments of 27.09.2023 – 12 S 25/22, 12 S 26/22 and 12 S 27/22).
However, the Regional Court allowed an appeal to the BGH.
BGH confirms case law
The BGH dismissed the plaintiff’s appeals and thus confirmed the judgments of the lower courts.
It clarified that the installation of a photo wallpaper does not constitute a reproduction within the meaning of Section 16 UrhG.
Reproduction presupposes that a reproduction is made that is capable of making the work perceptible to the human senses.
This is not the case with a purely decorative photo wallpaper.
It does not allow the work to be reproduced separately from the room in which it is installed.
The judges also did not consider the posting of photos of the rooms with the photomurals on the internet to be a copyright infringement.
The wallpapers were merely insignificant accessories in the photos within the meaning of Section 57 UrhG.
They served as decoration without being the subject of the image themselves.
Significance for practice
The decision creates **legal certainty** for hotel operators and other tradespeople who want to put up photo wallpapers in their rooms.
They no longer have to fear committing a copyright infringement.
Nevertheless, caution is always required when using copyright-protected works.
The rights of use should be clearly regulated, especially when commissioning photographers, as we explained in our article “Beware of photo wallpapers: You must observe these rights”.
The question of whether the photographer is an employee or freelancer can also have a significant impact on the exploitation rights.
We have summarized the most important points in our article“Freelancer or employee: Who owns the rights?“.
Conclusion
With its decision, the BGH has finally clarified the legal situation regarding photo wallpapers and confirmed the rulings of the lower courts.
Businesses can now install photo wallpapers in their premises without worrying about warnings.
However, caution is still required when commissioning photographers and using protected works.
If in doubt, legal advice should always be sought.
