Updated on August 20, 2026: This article has been expanded to provide a more comprehensive overview. New sections include the first steps to take after receiving a notice, the modified cease-and-desist declaration, cost considerations—including the cap for private individuals—how to handle erroneous cease-and-desist notices, and the consequences of failing to respond.

Before asserting claims for copyright infringement in court, the copyright holder must issue a cease-and-desist letter to the infringer in accordance with § 97a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) and request that the infringer submit a declaration of discontinuance subject to a penalty. Due to the increasing prevalence of so-called online piracy—such as the “illegal” downloading of music or movies—this provision has become increasingly important in recent years for the enforcement of copyright-protected rights.

Purposes of a warning letter in copyright law

The requirement for a cease-and-desist letter serves two purposes: First, it helps reduce the burden on the courts. By encouraging the parties—through the Copyright Act (a warning letter is not strictly required under copyright law)—to settle the matter among themselves, many copyright infringements can be resolved through warning letters. Second, the provision benefits the injured party: The option of issuing a warning letter allows them to enforce their rights in a cost- and resource-efficient manner.

Despite these valid objectives, the institute of warning letters has repeatedly been the subject of public criticism in recent years. In particular, so-called “mass warnings” have been repeatedly criticized by the media and consumer associations as abusive behavior. The legislator obviously felt that this was justified: The regulation on the requirement to issue warnings has been repeatedly revised since its introduction into the Copyright Act in 2008.

Formal requirements for a warning letter

In the course of these revisions, the legislator decided, among other things, to establish four formal requirements for the effectiveness of a warning notice in Section 97a (2) UrhG. These are intended to prevent abuse of the warning option. The following applies in detail:

• The warning must first contain the name or company name of the infringed party, unless the infringed party declares the warning himself. This requirement takes account of the fact that most warning letters are written by lawyers.
• Furthermore, the warning must contain a precise description of the infringement. This should make it clear to the infringer what exactly he is being accused of.

• If payment claims are also asserted, the amount of the respective compensation must be precisely itemized in the warning letter.
• If the warning letter contains a request to issue a cease-and-desist undertaking, it must be stated whether the proposed cease-and-desist undertaking goes significantly beyond the infringement for which the warning letter was issued.

Consequences of a justified warning in copyright law

If all these requirements are met, the warning is formally effective. The consequences of such an effective warning depend on whether it is justified. The decisive factor is whether the warning letter asserts an actually existing and enforceable claim for injunctive relief due to a copyright infringement.

If this is the case, the party issuing the warning can demand reimbursement of the expenses required for the warning (Section 97a (3) sentence 1). These expenses primarily include legal fees. However, they also include costs associated with investigating the infringement, such as costs for technical reports or test purchases.

Consequences of an unjustified warning

If the warning letter does not assert an actually existing and enforceable claim for injunctive relief, this is referred to as an unjustified warning letter. In such a case, the warned party is entitled to claim compensation for the expenses required for legal defense in accordance with Section 97a (4) sentence 1 UrhG. As a rule, these expenses also include legal fees. The same applies if the warning is ineffective, i.e. the formal requirements have not been met.

It should be noted that this claim for reimbursement of costs does not apply if it was not apparent to the person issuing the warning that the warning was unjustified at the time of the warning, Section 97a (4) sentence 1 UrhG. However, the burden of proof lies with the warning party.

Options for responding to a copyright warning

The distinction between a justified and unjustified warning does not only play a role in determining the legal consequences of a warning. It is also relevant when it comes to the question of the reaction of the warned party to a warning issued:

• If the warned party considers the warning to be justified, it can fulfill the claim of the warning party and submit an obligation to cease and desist with an appropriate contractual penalty. It may be worthwhile to formulate your own cease-and-desist declaration in order to avoid committing yourself to more than is legally necessary.
• If the person being warned considers the warning to be (partially) unjustified, they can file a so-called negative declaratory action with the court. In this action, he can apply for the court to declare that the alleged infringement does not exist at all. In addition, he can of course also simply wait and see whether the person issuing the warning letter takes legal action.
• If the warned party does not respond to the warning, the warning party must consider whether to file a “proper” lawsuit or first try to enforce its rights in preliminary injunction proceedings.

Which of these different response options is most appropriate for the parties involved in the individual case depends on the individual case. As each response option is associated with different consequences and other considerations may also play a role in some cases, the options should be carefully weighed up to ensure an appropriate response to a warning.

First Steps After Receipt

A cease-and-desist letter almost always sets a short deadline, often five to ten days. This deadline must be taken seriously, even if the allegation appears unfounded: Anyone who fails to respond risks a preliminary injunction, which can be issued without a hearing. Conversely, the attached cease-and-desist declaration should not be signed without review, because it typically gives the sender broader authority than the allegation warrants.

It therefore makes sense to follow this sequence: Note the date of receipt and the deadline; save the content in question rather than deleting it immediately without a trace; review your own chain of rights (license, assignment, contract, scope of use); and only then decide on a response. In practice, an extension of a few days can usually be obtained if requested before the deadline expires.

The Modified Cease-and-Desist Letter

The pre-drafted statement comes from the opposing party and is, accordingly, very broad in scope. Typical features include an obligation that goes beyond the specific form of the breach, a fixed contractual penalty of an unreasonable amount, and an acknowledgment of the costs claimed. Anyone who signs it enters into a contract that is binding for thirty years and triggers a payment obligation with every subsequent violation.

In practice, therefore, a modified declaration is issued: limited to the specific form of breach, without acknowledging any legal obligation and without specifying a fixed amount, but rather in accordance with the so-called “Hamburg custom,” under which the amount of the contractual penalty in the event of a breach is determined by the creditor at its reasonable discretion and may be reviewed by the court. This declaration eliminates the risk of recurrence and thus the claim for injunctive relief; costs and damages can then be disputed separately.

How Much a Cease-and-Desist Letter Can Cost

If the cease-and-desist letter is justified and complies with the requirements of Section 97a(2) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), the recipient of the letter is liable to reimburse the necessary expenses, pursuant to Section 97a(3) of the UrhG. The amount of these expenses is based on the value of the matter in dispute, which is often set between 6,000 and 15,000 euros for the use of images, and may exceed this amount for commercial uses.

A cap applies to private individuals: If the party receiving the warning is a natural person who does not use the work for commercial or self-employed professional purposes, compensation is limited to fees based on a value in dispute of 1,000 euros, § 97a(3), second sentence, of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). This cap does not apply if, given the specific circumstances of the individual case, this amount is deemed unreasonable—a point that is frequently disputed in practice. In 2022, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the provision complies with EU law.

In addition to attorneys’ fees, damages are typically at issue. These are usually calculated based on the “license analogy” under § 97(2) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG): The determining factor is what reasonable contracting parties would have agreed upon for the specific use. If the author’s name is omitted, a surcharge is added because the right to be named under § 13 UrhG has also been infringed.

If the warning letter is incorrect

The four formal requirements of Section 97a(2) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) are not an end in themselves. If the cease-and-desist letter does not comply with them, it is invalid, and the recipient may, in turn, demand reimbursement of the costs of his or her legal defense, pursuant to Section 97a(4) of the UrhG. The same applies to an unjustified warning letter. The defense thus becomes a counterclaim that can be set off against the claim.

Another point of consideration is the abuse of legal rights. If the issuance of cease-and-desist letters is disproportionate to the actual business activity or is clearly intended primarily to generate fees, the claim for reimbursement of costs is barred. Another important consideration for consumers is the venue: In lawsuits against natural persons who do not use the work for professional purposes, the court at the defendant’s place of residence has jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 104a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). This effectively blocks the previously common practice of seeking out courts that are particularly favorable to copyright holders.

What happens if no one responds?

If the warning letter remains unanswered, an application for a preliminary injunction typically follows. It can be granted within a few days and without a prior hearing; anyone wishing to challenge it must file an objection and, if the injunction is upheld, bear the costs of both proceedings. Concurrently or subsequently, a lawsuit seeking an injunction, disclosure, and damages may be filed.

The costs rise significantly at each stage because court costs and the fees charged by both attorneys are based on the same value in dispute. A substantive response within the deadline is therefore almost always the more cost-effective option, even if the allegation is essentially justified.

In-Depth Study by Case Groups

Depending on the topic, the following pages will take you further:

• Cease-and-desist letters regarding image rights: the most common scenario, from stock photo licenses to screenshots
• Have an authorization request or warning letter reviewed: if it’s unclear what the letter actually is
• Defending Against Cease-and-Desist Letters: What to Do If You Receive One
• Issuing Cease-and-Desist Letters: What to Do If Your Rights Are Infringed
• Cease-and-Desist Letters Under Competition Law: Separate Rules, Different Deadlines, Different Financial Consequences
• Music in TikTok and Instagram videos: the current trend among private users
• Proof of Authorship: What Evidence the Party Issuing the Cease-and-Desist Notice Must Provide
• How high damages can be: a case involving 9,150 euros for five photos

Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright Cease-and-Desist Letters