The photographers’ dispute: Neuruppin Regional Court rules in favor of social media advertising with press articles
Your contact person
In the age of the selfie, in which (almost) everyone carries a camera on their smartphone at all times (and makes extensive use of it), professional photographers don’t have it easy. Market shares are correspondingly competitive.
In proceedings before the Neuruppin Regional Court, a photographer wanted to have his competitor prohibited by interim injunction from posting certain press articles on the relevant social media channels, reports in which this new competitor was reported favorably and it was claimed that he, the competitor, was the “new city photographer”, and even more: the “only professional photographer” in the city.
The long-established photographer did not want to accept this and demanded an injunction. However, the Neuruppin Regional Court did not agree with him and dismissed the claim (LG Neuruppin, Urteil vom 28.7.2022, Az. 2 O 130/22, nicht rechtskräftig).
You can only refrain from doing what you have done before
The content of the application was seriously flawed. The new photographer had only published the article from the “Wochenspiegel” on his social media accounts, but not the one from the “Prignitzer”. In this respect, the requested preliminary injunction cannot extend to the publication of statements made in the “Prignitzer” article, but not in the “Wochenspiegel” article. Furthermore, the photographer had shortened the “Wochenspiegel” article in such a way that parts of the text that were the subject of the injunction request were graphically cut off and thus could not be read at all. He had therefore already ensured at the time of publication that these passages could not become part of the advertising effect. You can only refrain from doing what you have done before – the application comes to nothing. And: as far as the statements correspond to the facts, they are not objectionable anyway, according to the court. You can say – and post – what is true. There is no such thing as being misled by the truth.
First a vacation! – Not in such a hurry?
The application for a temporary injunction was also not formally convincing, as this requires a particular urgency. According to the Neuruppin Regional Court, this could be assumed in principle in the present case, but the plaintiff photographer himself contradicted this with his behavior, which contributed significantly to the delay in the proceedings. He had filed an application to postpone the hearing because he wanted to go on vacation the day before the scheduled hearing. The Neuruppin judges logically concluded from this that he was probably not in such a hurry after all: “Against this background, urgency can no longer be assumed”. The only thing left to say is: please smile!
This article was written by our freelance author Josef Bordat. It is part of our series “Reports from the parallel world”. Here, authors from other specialist areas take a look at the theory and practice of law. Unlike our other specialist articles, the articles do not look at events and legal cases from a legal perspective, but from a completely different angle. It is up to the reader to decide from which perspective. In our opinion, it will always be interesting.
Related posts
Multiple awards.
