Country: Netherlands

9.12.2014

District Court Rechtbank Den Haag – Damage won: 1882,50 euros

Photographer’s seat of residence: Germany

Opponent’s seat of residence: Netherlands

Court: Den Haag, Netherlands

Damage won: 1883 euros (3 x MF recommendation) + all costs

23.01.2015

District Court Rechtbank Amsterdam – Damage won: 1396 euros

Photographer’s seat of residence: American

Opponent’s seat of residence: Netherlands

Lawyer: Kitty van Boven

Court: Midden, Netherlands

Damage won: 1395 euros ((3x MFM recommendation) + all costs

27.10.2016

District Court in Den Bosch – Damage won: 2906 euros

Photographer’s seat of residence: Germany

Opponent’s seat of residence: Netherlands

Lawyer: Kitty van Boven

Court: District Court, Den Bosch, Netherlands

Damage won: 2906 euros reimbursements

31.08.2016

Court in Midden – Damage won: 3372,56 euros

Photographer’s seat of residence:  United States

Opponent’s seat of residence: Netherlands

Lawyer: Kitty van Bowen

Court: Midden, Netherlands

Damage won: 3372,56 euros damages + 3051,83 Euro costs reimbursed

7.02.2018

Court Gergerland Arnhem – Damage won: 1359,81

Photographer’s seat of residence: German

Opponent’s seat of residence: Dutch

Lawyer: Kitty van Boven

Court: Court Gergerland Arnhem, Netherlands

Damage won: 1359,81 euros reimbursements

20.05.2020

Contractual Penalty – opponent from Netherlands, court in Germany

Claimant nationality: German

Defendant nationality: Netherlands

Lawyer: Robert Fechner

Court: Landgericht Berlin

Damage won: 5.001 € plus interest since 20.08.2017 + 1.101,94 € legal fees plus interest since 05.03.2020 + 113,05 €

Summary: The Landgericht Berlin (District Court) sentences the defendant based in the Netherlands to pay the amounts 5.001 € plus interest since 20.08.2017 + 1.101,94 € legal fees plus interest since 05.03.2020 + 113,05 € documentation fees to the claimant based in Germany. The defendant violated the Cease and Desist claim, and did not cease to make the photograph in question publicly available, in particular on the Internet. The evidence to prove this was made by RightsPilot UG. Therefore, the court agreed that the claim was admissible and justified. The claimant had a contractually defined right to claim the contractual penalty, because the cease and desist declaration was violated, without there being a visible reason for excuse. Therefore, also the legal fees and the documentation fees needed to be reimbursed.

11.01.2017

Court Zeeland West Brabant – Damage won: 540 euros + all legal costs

Photographer’s seat of residence: Germany

Opponent’s seat of residence: Netherlands

Lawyer: Kitty van Boven

Court: Court West Brabant, Netherlands

Damage won: 540 euros + all legal costs

(case not handled by PhotoClaim)

Got aquestion?

    I have read and agree with
    Terms & Conditions
    Get youre-book

      I have read and agree with
      Terms & Conditions

      You can get your file

      form
      Link added to the buffer