03/02/2020 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LG Hamburg, judgment of 24.01.2014 - 324 O 264/11 - openJur they are removed from the original page. The thumbnail cache does not save the preview images to be displayed as a search result permanently, but temporarily or temporarily until the next interval indexing at which the content of the respective website is updated in the thumbnail cache (cf. defendant's brief dated February 21, 2012) , In the context of these image searches, unlike a text search using snippets, a user is shown the search results using thumbnails. A representation, for example by means of a short image description, is not possible since the search engine cannot carry out a semantic content analysis of the binary information. If the user moves the cursor over a preview image, further identifying information about the respective image is displayed (including file name, website, size of the image file). Each preview image displayed also represents a link, ie it is equipped with a hypertext link. The user can get to the respective website by clicking on the preview image. Because of the further details of the reproduction of preview images in the image search, reference is made to the explanations in the statement of defense from 21.02. When generating the search results, the defendant depends on the website operator, who decides whether, at what point, in what context and with what content a certain image is placed on his website and whether this image is accessible without restriction. Likewise, the search terms entered by a user decide on the search result list. The defendant offers a process for blocking content from the search results of the image search, which is available on the website “www. g..de ”is available under the heading“ Contact ”(“ Notice and Takedown ”procedure). Here, the user names, among other things, the respective URL of the search result he objects to; for the details of this procedure, reference is made to the explanations, in particular the respective screenshots, in the response to the complaint (p. 79 ff of the defendant's brief of 02/21/2012). In a letter from his attorney-at-law dated March 12, 2010, addressed to a company based in Germany and associated with the defendant, the plaintiff pointed out that the image search on "g..de" secretly made images that, in his opinion, violate his privacy , are disseminated and referred to the publications listed in an appendix (Appendix K 5). The defendant replied by email dated March 24, 2010 requesting copies of judgments (Appendix K 6). By letter dated April 7, 2010, the plaintiff asked the company based in Germany to submit a declaration of cease and desist (Annex K 7 and 8). The defendant responded by email dated April 12, 2010 (Appendix K 9), the plaintiff replied by letter dated May 6, 2010 (Appendix K 10), whereupon the defendant again referred to the sending of judgments (email from May 17, 2010, Appendix K 11). The plaintiff then sent three orders from the Hamburg Regional Court by email dated May 10, 2010, for details please refer to system bundle K 13. A further email followed on May 21, 2010 from the plaintiff with a list of URLs of the disputed images (Appendix K 14). In the defendant's email dated May 28, 2010, she informed the plaintiff that 29 images had been deleted from the search results at "g..de". For the relevant URLs, please refer to Appendix K 15. By email dated July 1, 2010, the plaintiff requested that further recordings be deleted and indicated that among the 192,000 search results there were thousands more versions of the still images. He also pointed out that the defendant must be able to to set up a filter (Appendix K 16). The defendant responded with the emails dated July 29. and 30.07.2010 (Annexes K 17 and 18) and announced that they had removed further search results. The plaintiff then requested the defendant by letter dated December 21, 2010 (accidentally dated October 21, 2010) to submit a declaration of cease and desist (Annexes K 19 and 20). The defendant replied to this with emails from 2.02. and 23.02.2011 and declared that they had removed further images from the search results (Annexes K 21 and 22). By letter dated March 7, 2011, the counsel for the plaintiff charged the defendant the costs of her extrajudicial work, and the defendant did not respond (Appendix K 26). Der Kläger ist in Deutschland erfolgreich gegen über 200 Internetseiten vorgegangen, die behauptet hatten, er sei an „Nazi-Sex“ beteiligt gewesen, Gegenstand von Verfahren waren u.a. auch Bilder aus dem heimlich aufgenommen Video (Anlagenkonvolut K 13). Die jeweiligen Hypertext-Links der beanstandeten Bilder führen zu unterschiedlichen Angeboten, so etwa auch zu Seiten von „T. D. M.“, „T. S. M. H.“, „T. A.“, „T. H. P.“, „V. F.“, „G. M.“, wobei zwischen den Parteien streitig ist, zu welchem Zeitpunkt bestimmte Bilder durch „T. D. M.“ verbreitet wurden und wie es dazu kam (Anlage B 2, K 27). Bei den in der Klagschrift unter i) lit. a) – c), e) – j) dargestellten Bildern handelt es sich um Kopien der Standbilder aus dem heimlich aufgenommenen Video, bei dem Antrag zu i) lit. d) um eine Kollage von Aufnahmen aus diesem Video. Der Kläger trägt in der Klagschrift vor, dass bei Eingabe der Stichworte „m.“ und „n.“ in die Maske der Bildersuchfunktion der Beklagten unter „www. g..de/“ die antragsgegenständlichen Aufnahmen - zumeist vielfach – angezeigt worden seien, aus Anlagenkonvolut K 3 seien die https://openjur.de/u/674344.html 2/23