The contract says “all rights” — do I still have claims?

Possibly, yes. Under § 31 Abs. 5 UrhG, the scope of the grant of rights is determined by the contractual purpose assumed by both sides if the types of use are not named individually. A blanket formula is, in case of doubt, interpreted narrowly — in your favor.

What is the difference between § 32 and § 32a UrhG?

§ 32 UrhG applies if the agreed remuneration was inappropriate from the outset. § 32a UrhG applies if a conspicuous disproportion between your remuneration and the exploiter's income only arises later — this claim cannot be waived in advance.

Can I simply send a follow-up invoice?

An objective demand offering two routes — a retrospective license against quantified additional remuneration, or ending the use — experience shows more often leads to an agreement than a pure demand to cease. You should have a formal warning letter (Abmahnung) reviewed by a lawyer beforehand (§ 97a Abs. 4 UrhG).

Does this also apply to source code?

Yes. Computer programs are protected under §§ 69a ff. UrhG. Special rules apply to them, however, among others on adaptation and decompilation — but the scope comparison works the same way.

Creatives · Use beyond the license

Work used more widely than licensed — additional remuneration under §§ 31 Abs. 5, 32, 32a UrhG

Licensed for the website, now on posters? Whatever the contract does not expressly state is, in case of doubt, not granted.

Get started – 10 free credits →All use cases

No credit card · 10 credits free · Cancel anytime

Deadline at a glance

3 years from knowledge

§ 102 UrhG

Claims become time-barred three years from the end of the year in which you learned of the infringement and the infringer. With ongoing use, they arise anew continuously; the residual damages claim under § 852 BGB can run for longer.

It is an AI, not a person: nobody looks at your individual case, and we do not know who signs up or for what reason. That is why we give pointers, but no legal advice on the individual case. Guidelines and playbooks in the platform are only guardrails: the AI relies on the available sources and your information. AI can make mistakes — check important results, and if in doubt, ask a lawyer.

Typical risks in this scenario

What we pay special attention to

Curated from real cases. The AI review flags exactly these points in your document.

Wording such as "all rights comprehensively" without listing the types of use — under § 31 Abs. 5 UrhG the purpose of the contract counts, not the broad wording.
Passing the work on to group companies, agencies or platforms without a granted sublicense.
Editing, cropping or translating without a right to adapt (§ 23 UrhG).
Missing author attribution — § 13 UrhG gives a separate claim for this.
A flat-rate buy-out intended to exclude § 32a UrhG: this claim cannot be waived in advance (§ 32a Abs. 3 UrhG).
Types of use that did not even exist when the contract was concluded — § 31a UrhG requires written form for this and grants a right of revocation.
Limitation: three years from knowledge of the infringement and the infringer (§ 102 UrhG in conjunction with §§ 195, 199 BGB).
Sending a warning letter (Abmahnung) yourself without legal review — a formally defective warning letter triggers counterclaims under § 97a Abs. 4 UrhG.

What you can do here in 5 minutes

Creatives almost always grant rights of use more narrowly than the client later acts: the website becomes a campaign, Germany becomes Europe, one year becomes permanent. Copyright law is on your side here — the purpose-of-transfer rule (Zweckübertragungsregel) of § 31 Abs. 5 UrhG interprets every unclear grant of rights narrowly. What matters is not how generous the contract sounds, but which types of use it expressly names.

Upload the license agreement and describe the actual use — we compare the scope granted with the scope actually used, identify the difference and assess whether additional remuneration (§ 32 UrhG), further participation (§ 32a UrhG) or damages calculated by license analogy (§ 97 UrhG) is the main issue.

How it works

Results in three steps

Upload contract and evidence

License agreement plus dated screenshots of the actual use.

Scope comparison

Types of use, media, territory, duration, adaptation, sublicense — agreed versus actual.

Classification of claims

Additional remuneration, further participation or injunctive relief — with a letter of demand.

What you get

Upload contract and evidence – License agreement plus dated screenshots of the actual use.
Scope comparison – Types of use, media, territory, duration, adaptation, sublicense — agreed versus actual.
Classification of claims – Additional remuneration, further participation or injunctive relief — with a letter of demand.

What it is not

No quantification of the customary market license fee — the license analogy requires a verifiable basis for comparison.
No preservation of evidence: you must secure screenshots, timestamps and proof of reach yourself.
No warning letter and no cease-and-desist declaration backed by a penalty.

FAQ

Common questions about this case

Transparency

What the AI checks — and what only a lawyer can decide

An AI is only as good as the question. We show openly where your answer is reliable and where you should speak with a lawyer.

As soon as you want to enforce an injunction, demand a cease-and-desist declaration backed by a penalty, or send a formal warning letter (Abmahnung) — and where there is a conspicuous disproportion between your remuneration and the later success (§ 32a UrhG) — the case belongs with a copyright lawyer.

More use cases