For this reason, I would like to point out once again that operators of online shops similar websites with many graphics and photos pay close attention to the contracts of the photographers concerned.
This applies both to the use of stock photos (see this article or this article but also to this reference to the Cordoba decision ) but also tothe use of photos taken by a photographer on his own behalf. Here, too, it is necessary to observe exactly what rights were granted by the photographer. If the employee was, the exploitation rights must be assessed differently than if the photographer was only a contractor. Of course, it is particularly critical when the photos were taken by someone WITHOUT remuneration, e.g. because it was a friendship achievement. I can only advise against this in principle, that even with a contract there could later be a dispute about the appropriate remuneration, which can quickly become expensive if, for example, the online shop eventually became successful – mainly because of the pictures. See, for example, this decision.
But professional photographers should also pay attention to which rights are transferred, to which platforms the rights apply (social media? Mobile Devices?), to whom exactly these rights are granted (rights transfer? Portability?) and much more.
In the meantime, there is software that can crawl hundreds of websites per hour and compares and if and since when illegal photos have been used. Then the possibilities of defence are usually limited to the amount of costs (see this BGH decision) and not whether there is any claim for damages at all.
