This article was written in 2015 and reflects my original guidance from the photographic practice at that time. It does not replace individual legal advice; specific agreements and individual circumstances are decisive.
Regarding right to attribution, there seems to be a need for clarification. Naturally, I am not offering legal advice here — I’ll briefly outline the core principles and provide tips.
Right to Attribution – Basics
The right to attribution is regulated under § 13 of the Copyright Act (§ 13 Urheberrechtsgesetz):
“An author has the right to recognition of their authorship in the work. They may determine whether the work shall be marked with an authorship designation and which designation shall be used.”
What does the right to attribution mean in practice?
The photographer is the author of the photograph. They alone determine whether their work (the photograph) should be marked with an authorship designation. For example, in my case, “Foto: Enric Mammen” should appear under the image. This means the photographer decides how the image should be marked and in what form — they can even specify where the marking should appear, for instance, right or left beneath the image.
The photographer may waive the marking. This must be done in writing; otherwise, you have no legal basis to rely on this.
The photographer may demand additional compensation for waiving the marking.
The photographer may also specify that the image must never be marked at all. (For instance, if they photograph campaign posters for two political parties, they may wish to avoid alienating either party — so it’s better if nothing on the poster suggests authorship.)
In one sentence: The photographer decides how and whether a photo should be marked — not you.
What if I don’t want it?
Legally speaking, you’ve been unlucky.
Solution 1
Simply add the required authorship designation. There’s no reason not to comply with the law — and in most cases, you don’t have to feel ashamed of including the photographer’s name. Why not?
Solution 2
Practically, there’s always a way: contact the author before publication and explain the problem. For instance, the marking may not fit well into the layout, but it could be placed nicely at the bottom of a webpage. Offer, for example, to link the marking to the photographer’s homepage, and place it elsewhere. He doesn’t have to agree — but he’ll probably offer a solution or take your suggestion into account. I, for one, handle it this way.
Solution 3
Money. Licensing rights can be expanded, and waiving the attribution can be resolved with additional compensation. You compensate for the lost advertising effect in cash. How much depends on the licensing type. Roughly, calculate how much you paid for the licensing rights to the image.
Here too: clarify before publication!
Solution 4
There is no fourth solution: Just do it and let it be. As long as you lack a written agreement stating that the attribution can be omitted, you’re in breach. Especially online, published images are quickly found — and you may receive a bill from the author, a lawyer’s demand, or even a criminal complaint in the worst case. A temporary injunction against the use of the image would be an additional escalation in particularly harsh cases.
In one sentence: The right is on the author’s side — but the author will usually be willing to find a reasonable, mutually beneficial solution with you — so communicate with them.
Right to Attribution – Common Misconceptions:
I didn’t publish the image — I only shared it on Facebook or used it as a profile picture on XING or LinkedIn.
Unfortunately, this is a misconception — this is also a publication.
No one told me I had to include a name!
No one has to tell you. There’s no sign with an excerpt of the Road Traffic Regulation hanging at every red light. Even if nothing was said and you received all necessary licensing rights, this doesn’t mean you can omit the attribution. See this article about the latest ruling on this. Attribution is a standard — omitting it is an exception. The burden of proof lies with you — you must prove the photographer waived attribution.
I received the image from someone and published it — and they didn’t mention attribution!
Unfortunately, this doesn’t change anything. Anyone publishing an image must check whether they are truly permitted to do so and whether attribution is required. You could try to recover the money from the person — but this does not absolve you of liability for what you have published.
The name appears in the image credit on page 89!
That’s usually not sufficient. The attribution and the image must be clearly and without effort linked — meaning, the marking must be “on the work” and not 80 pages away.
I bought the image.
You may feel you bought the image — but in most cases, you only purchased the right to use the image. For example, you may use it for advertising, your website, brochures, flyers, or other purposes. This depends on the transferred licensing rights. But this does not mean you can waive attribution. The right to attribution remains unaffected — unless you have a written agreement to the contrary.
I didn’t intend to omit attribution — please cancel your invoice.
Such things can happen — in the heat of the moment. An apology is not wrong. Nevertheless, there’s a breach of § 13 UrhG, and you’re liable for damages. If you get a speeding ticket, it’s usually irrelevant whether it was intentional or negligent — or whether you simply disregarded the rules.
If I add the photographer’s name, I can publish the image.
That’s wrong. You always need the author’s consent. For example, in my case, you’ll find this permission and additional rules on the invoice and in the contract I signed with you. For instance, it also states whether you may share the image with the press and how it should be marked. In case of doubt: ask — it costs nothing, but always ask before publication.
If I crop and convert the image to black-and-white, it’s a new image — so I don’t need to mention the name.
Cropping and a new color do not make a new image. In fact, it may even become more expensive due to distortion of the work.
I only published it on my private website — I’m not a company, and I earn money from it.
Publication means making it public — and your homepage can be viewed by anyone. This does not release you from your obligation to comply with the law.
Right to Attribution? We never do it — done.
Anarchy or what? Neither you nor your company determine the necessity of attribution — it’s the law and the author’s right. Even the Pope or the Chancellor are not exempt. See above: Solutions 1 or 3. Solution 2 would be nice as a reward for such a stance — done.
I did add something underneath!
Yes — but what? The author determines the marking of the work. In my case, it usually reads “Foto: Enric Mammen.” You must mark the image exactly as specified — not “©E.Mammen” or “Bildnachweis: Mammen” or “Photo: Mammen,” but literally “Foto: Enric Mammen” — or whatever your photographer or image agency specifies under the law. This includes the natural name or pseudonym — not the full address or other extensive markings. For example, if you license one of my photos through an agency, it might read “©Agentur XY, Foto: Enric Mammen,” since I am the author and the agency holds the rights to reproduction and distribution.
Right to Attribution – Summary
At its core, everything is quite simple and not at all bad: The author decides whether and how precisely their work must be marked. The person publishing the work must comply with this. Written agreements are safest. If you’re unsure, always ask the author (photographer). Even if you did not receive information about the marking, you must still implement it — because the law says attribution is the norm. Deviations are exceptions and require written consent.
If you observe this and always ask the author, agency, or whoever delivered you the image — you’re safe.
Links on the topic:
