The first case note was published in edition 511 of Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad and comments seven judgments of the Antwerp Court of Appeal, in which the same law firm acts on behalf of various photographers on the basis of online copyright infringements (see the Jura database). In each of these instances, the photographers had been approached by an intermediary internet undertaking that crawls the web in exchange for remuneration with the aim of finding unconsented use of images on third-party websites and starting legal proceedings in name of the photographers. The judgments are very detailed about the calculation of damages with regard to online copyright infringements and zoom in on the role of the abuse of right doctrine when alleged  copyright trolls are involved. Moreover, the Court dictates the minimum requirements set for the first formal notice, making the judgments particularly interesting to IP practitioners operating in Belgium. The judgements were published entirely on IE Forum.

In an even more recent case note in edition 515 of Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad, Simon Geiregat focusses on the first published case in the series that was judged by the Court of Appeal of Ghent. In the judgment dated 20 Januari 2025 (see Jura database), the Court largely adopts the reasoning of its Antwerp colleagues, but it also zooms in on a number of aspects that were not yet addressed in the judgments of its Antwerp sister. For example, the Ghent Court of Appeal explicitly states that it is appropriate to increase the damages in order to compensate for the fact that the author was denied the opportunity to decide whether or not to give consent, but without justifying this on the basis of the theory of missed opportunity, as the Antwerp Court did. It also puts the alleged management company OnLineArt under the microscope and finds that the tariffs used by that cooperative society have not demonstrated to be representative. The recent Ghent judgment also addresses the allegation that PIXSY would be a copyright troll and that it failed to sufficiently substantiate its claims in the phase preceding judicial proceedings. Against its findings, it concludes that the latter party abused its rights. Finally, the judgment also offers valuable insights for legal practice because of the amounts and percentages used by the Court of Appeal in Ghent to calculate damages ex aequo et bono. This judgement, too, is available on IE Forum.

More on LinkedIn: