1. Legal Framework in Poland

Under Polish law:

• The photographer is the author of real estate images
• Any use in listings requires a license or transfer of economic rights
• Unauthorized use may trigger:
  • Compensation claims
  • Injunctive relief
  • Moral rights claims (e.g., lack of attribution)

Real estate portals are also treated as intermediaries or publishers depending on control over content.

2. Key Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)

(1) Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

Facts:

Infopaq scanned newspaper articles and extracted short text excerpts without permission.

Legal Principle:

Even very small fragments of copyrighted works may be protected if they reflect the author’s intellectual creation.

Relevance to Real Estate Photos:

• A photograph of a property is fully protected as an “original work”
• Even cropped or partially reused images in listings still constitute infringement

Key Takeaway:

No “minimal use” defense exists for copyrighted photos in listings—any reproduction requires authorization.

(2) Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH

Facts:

A portrait photograph was reproduced without permission in newspapers.

Legal Principle:

A photograph is protected if it reflects author’s creative choices (lighting, framing, composition).

Relevance to Real Estate:

• Property photos are not “mechanical captures” if the photographer chooses angles, lighting, and staging
• Real estate photos therefore qualify as original copyrighted works

Key Takeaway:

Even “simple” property images are protected intellectual creations.

(3) Pelham GmbH v Hütter

Facts:

Concerned sampling of a sound recording without consent.

Legal Principle:

Any identifiable reuse of a protected work requires authorization unless exceptions apply.

Relevance:

• Real estate agencies often reuse listing photos across platforms
• Even internal reuse (e.g., MLS-style databases) may be infringing if not licensed

Key Takeaway:

Reuse across platforms is legally equivalent to reproduction requiring permission.

(4) BSA v Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic

Facts:

Concerned whether screen displays of copyrighted works required authorization.

Legal Principle:

Temporary or digital displays still count as communication to the public.

Relevance to Listings:

• Uploading property photos to real estate portals = “communication to the public”
• Even temporary online listing visibility is legally relevant

Key Takeaway:

Posting photos on listing websites is a legally regulated act of public communication.

(5) Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB

Facts:

Hyperlinking to copyrighted articles.

Legal Principle:

A work is “communicated to the public” if it is made available to a new audience or via a different technical means.

Relevance:

• If a photo is reposted from a photographer’s portfolio into a listing site, it reaches a new public
• Requires separate licensing even if already online elsewhere

Key Takeaway:

Online availability does not imply free reuse in listings.

(6) GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands

Facts:

Unauthorized publication of copyrighted photos via hyperlinks.

Legal Principle:

Commercial intent increases liability for linking or sharing unauthorized works.

Relevance to Real Estate Agencies:

• Real estate agencies are commercial actors
• Using unlicensed photos increases presumption of knowledge of infringement

Key Takeaway:

Commercial use of copyrighted images triggers stricter liability standards.

(7) SPCJ v Marco Del Corso

Facts:

Concerned public performance rights in a dental clinic playing music.

Legal Principle:

Use of protected works in commercial environments constitutes public communication if it benefits the business.

Relevance:

• Property listings use photos to drive commercial transactions
• Therefore, use is clearly “commercial communication”

Key Takeaway:

Real estate listings are commercial uses, strengthening enforcement rights for photographers.

(8) FAPL v QC Leisure

Facts:

Unauthorized broadcast of football matches in public venues.

Legal Principle:

Public display of protected content in commercial settings requires authorization.

Relevance:

• Real estate offices displaying property photos in windows or digital screens
• Considered public communication requiring licensing

Key Takeaway:

Even offline display of listing photos can infringe copyright.

3. Practical Legal Issues in Polish Real Estate Listings

A. Who Owns the Photos?

• Photographer retains copyright unless rights are transferred in writing
• Agencies often assume ownership incorrectly

B. Portal Liability

Real estate platforms may be:

• Passive hosts (limited liability)
• Or active publishers (higher liability if they curate or edit listings)

C. Common Violations

• Copying competitor listings
• Using “free internet images” of properties
• Reposting MLS photos without license renewal

4. Remedies Under Polish Law

Rights holders may claim:

• Monetary compensation (license fee equivalent or damages)
• Double remuneration in some cases
• Removal of infringing content
• Attribution rights enforcement

5. Key Takeaways

• Property photographs are fully protected copyrighted works
• Any listing use requires a valid license
• EU case law consistently interprets “use” broadly (reproduction, upload, display, sharing)
• Commercial nature of real estate listings increases liability
• Platforms and agencies both may be responsible depending on control over content