No marketing material, no web-shop product, no social-media post without an image. That’s precisely why photo cease-and-desists have been the most common reason for copyright proceedings in Austria for years. The problems usually don’t arise from bad intent — but from ignorance about what an image licence specifically permits and what it doesn’t.

Which image source is safe — and which isn’t?

From our advisory practice a rough risk hierarchy emerges:

  • Your own photos — the safest option, you are the author. For images of persons, the consent of those depicted must be observed.
  • Paid stock-photo platforms (Adobe Stock, Shutterstock, Getty etc.) — low risk, provided the licence terms are observed.
  • Free-stock platforms (Pixabay, Unsplash, Pexels) — usually usable, but not risk-free, because uploaders occasionally post images to which they hold no rights.
  • Creative-Commons images (e.g. from Wikimedia Commons) — usable if the specific CC licence condition is met (attribution, licence note, possibly no-derivatives).
  • Pinterest, Google image search, screenshots of third-party websites — highly risky, typical cease-and-desist source.
  • AI-generated images — their own risk class (see below).

Stock-photo platforms: the typical licence traps

Even a paid stock-photo licence does not automatically shield against cease-and-desist letters. In our practice we routinely see:

  • Breach of the attribution obligation. Some licences require naming the author in the imprint or directly on the image — ignoring this gives rights holders an attack surface.
  • Extended use without an extended licence. Standard licences often don’t cover all uses — print runs above X copies, editorial vs. advertising use, merchandise or resale can require separate licences.
  • Photos of persons without a model release. Even if you have licensed the image — if the platform uploader had no consent from the person depicted, the person’s claim can land with you.

Practical tip: For each image used, document the source, the licence and the date of licensing — ideally in a simple table. In a later cease-and-desist matter, this documentation is worth its weight in gold.

Pinterest, Google and the like — “freely available” doesn’t mean “free to use”

One of the most common misconceptions: if an image is publicly accessible on the internet, that doesn’t mean it’s released for use. Google image search shows images from other websites as previews — it conveys no usage rights. Pinterest collects images from around the world, often without licence clearance by the uploaders.

Adoption from these sources without a separate licence from the rights holder is regularly a copyright infringement — and typically triggers a cease-and-desist letter with damages claims in the four- to five-figure range.

AI-generated images: their own risk category

Images from Midjourney, DALL·E, Stable Diffusion and similar tools raise several questions:

  • The licence question: What the AI tool’s terms of use permit (commercial or only private, with or without sub-licence) decides whether you may publish the images at all.
  • The authorship question: Images without a substantial human creative contribution are not protected by copyright in Austria — you acquire no exclusive right in pure AI outputs.
  • The training-data question: If an AI image visibly resembles a protected work, claims from the original rights holders can arise — also against you as the user.

More on this in our article on AI and copyright.

People in photos — data protection and personality rights

Wherever persons are identifiably depicted, the right to one’s own image (§ 78 UrhG) regularly comes on top of copyright — and for client, employee or customer images also data protection (GDPR). Both areas go beyond pure photo law:

  • Consent should be documented in writing, with a specific scope of use (website, social media, print advertising), time-limited and revocable
  • For employees a separate agreement is advisable — the blanket consent “hidden” in the employment contract is rarely sufficient
  • For event photos of incidental attendees, clear notices at the entrance or in the programme help

Best practice for businesses

Anyone who wants to reduce the risk of photo cease-and-desists typically does well with this simple list:

  • Keep a pixel inventory — which image comes from which source, with which licence, used since when
  • Read stock-photo licences before every commercial use — print runs and social-media campaigns often have their own licence tiers
  • Obtain model releases — for every identifiable photo of a person, before publication
  • Pinterest, Google image search and screenshots of third-party websites are off-limits except with explicit permission of the rights holder
  • On a cease-and-desist, get legal advice immediately — the amounts demanded are routinely inflated, and with the right defence the costs can typically be reduced significantly

Anyone who has received a photo cease-and-desist will find more details on procedure, fees and typical ranges on our photo cease-and-desist landing page.

This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice in any specific case.