Have an Authorization Request & Warning Letter Reviewed

A letter has arrived. It names a deadline, an amount and a piece of music, a photograph or a film file. Whether there is a valid claim behind it is rarely apparent from the letter itself. That is exactly what we check: free of charge, without obligation and with a clear recommendation on what to do next.

We see these letters every day. The senders work in waves, and their arguments repeat. That makes the review quick, because we know where each sender is vulnerable.

The letters we review

Music in reels, TikToks and streams. SoundGuardian GmbH and comparable companies demand retrospective licence fees for music used in social media videos. For a single track the amounts are regularly in the four-figure range. More on this in our article on the SoundGuardian authorization request.

Photographs on websites and in advertising. Picture agencies and their service providers scan the web automatically. Some send an enquiry first, others issue a warning letter straight away. Answering the mere enquiry without advice often supplies the very basis for the later claim.

File sharing. Warning letters concerning films, series and computer games, sent on behalf of rights holders in the music and film industry. Special rules apply here to the burden of presentation and to limitation periods.

Trade marks and unfair competition. Warning letters alleging trade mark infringement, misleading advertising or missing mandatory information.

What we examine

Is the sender entitled at all? The chain of rights is the first and often the most productive point of examination. Whoever asserts rights must hold them, and must hold them for the period complained of. Where rights were transferred only as of a particular date, earlier uses are not covered.

Is this a formal warning letter or an enquiry? This is not a question of wording but determines the response. A warning letter under section 97a of the German Copyright Act demands that you cease and desist and sets a deadline. An authorization request merely asks. Many letters mix the two, and the classification follows from the precise wording.

Is the amount correct? Damages in copyright law are regularly calculated by analogy to a licence fee: the benchmark is what reasonable contracting parties would have agreed. The claimant’s own price list does not automatically reflect that value. This is where the amounts are frequently open to challenge.

Is the claim still enforceable? Claims for copyright infringement are generally time-barred after three years. Where publication dates back some time, the date is worth a close look. A longer period applies to the licence damages, however, so older matters are not automatically resolved.

What you should not do now

Do not pay prematurely. Payment amounts to an acknowledgement in substance and makes later objections difficult. Nor does it reliably protect you against follow-up claims.

Do not sign the enclosed cease-and-desist declaration unchecked. It is regularly drafted too broadly and binds you for decades, with a contractual penalty for every breach.

Do not provide information without advice. What you disclose may become the basis of the claim.

Do not let the deadline pass. Even where a claim is unfounded, silence risks an interim injunction or court proceedings, and the costs then rise considerably.

Why the initial assessment is free

Because it saves time on both sides. In many cases a single look is enough to see whether a defence is worthwhile. If the claim is justified and the amount appropriate, we will tell you so just as plainly as we will tell you when it is not. Costs arise only once you instruct us, and we discuss the terms with you beforehand.