Open main menu

Other languages:
Alemannisch • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎Nederlands • ‎asturianu • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎slovenčina • ‎slovenščina • ‎suomi • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
Copyright rules: Germany
Shortcut: COM:GERMANY
Flag of Germany
Map of Germany
Durations
Standard Life + 70 years
Anonymous Publish + 70 years
Other
Terms run to year end Yes[1]
Common licence tags {{PD-old-auto}}
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}
{{PD-EU-unpublished}}
{{PD-GermanGov}}
{{FoP-Germany}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 DEU
Treaties
Berne convention 5 December 1887
Univ. Copyright Convention 16 September 1955
WTO member 1 January 1995
URAA restoration date 1 January 1996
WIPO treaty 14 March 2010

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Germany relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Germany must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Germany and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Germany, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Contents

Governing laws

Germany has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[2]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the 9 September 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, as amended up to Act of September 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of Germany.[2] WIPO holds the text of this law in English and German in their WIPO Lex database.[3][4]

Summary

According to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights as amended up to Act of September 1, 2017,

  • Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years.[UrhG/2017 § 64]
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed his/her authorship – for works created prior to July 1, 1995: if the author never became known anywhere). Not applicable to some non-photographic works of art.[5]
  • Publication right: 25 years from first publication or first public performance if copyright has expired before such publication or performance, or if the work has never been protected in Germany and the author died more than 70 years before the first publication.[UrhG/2017 § 71]

Official works

By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. The relevant law is section 5 of the UrhG. The first sentence states:

  • Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as well as decisions and official guidelines on decisions are not protected by copyright.[6]

Copyright tags

See also: [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Copyright tags|Commons:Copyright tags]]

  • {{PD-GermanGov}} – for public domain images from German statutes or other regulations.
  • {{PD-BW}} – for publicly available service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr).
  • {{PD-Coa-Germany}} – for German coats of arms of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§&5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Flag-Germany}} – for German flags of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Seal-Germany}} – for German seals of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-VzKat}} – for road signs published as statutes or other regulations.
  • {{PD-German stamps}} – for current German stamps.
  • {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Bundespost.
  • {{PD-GDR stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Post der DDR.
  • {{PD-Meyers}} – for images from the 4th edition of Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885–90).
  • {{PD-Germany-§134}} – for literary works, works of music and scientific or technical images published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.
  • {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} – for photographs and works of art published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.

Currency

See also: [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Currency|Commons:Currency]]   Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes.

  • At present many Commons images of German coins and banknotes use {{PD-GermanGov}}, but this template relies on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, which has recently been declared by a low German court (Landgericht) to apply only to text, not images. See discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#German_currency.
  • Deutsche Bundesbank has confirmed public domain for German DM-banknotes 1949-2001, which is, however, a permission for simple usage only and not solely sufficient) towards Wikipedia.[7]
  • According to the coinciding German copyright literature, works like bank notes, coins and stamps are not to be considered works by the government and are not free.[8] This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimis

See also: [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:De minimis|Commons:De minimis]] The Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights as of 2017 says,

  • Marginal accessories: Copying, propagation, and public rendition of works is permitted if they are to be considered insignificant to the actual object of copying, propagation, or public rendition.[UrhG/2017 §57]

The central requirement for the application of §57 UrhG follows directly from the text of the provision: the presence of an “actual object” which neither has to be protected by way of copyright (Urheberrecht) nor ancillary copyright laws (Leistungsschutzrechte). For the second part see Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), §57 (6); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), §57 (1). Compared to this primary object, the element in question—according to the predominant opinion among courts and legal scholars alike—“(1) may not even have the slightest contextual relationship and (2) has to be without any importance for it due to its randomness and arbitrariness” (emphasis and numbering ours).[9] This wording is directly adopted by OLG München, 29 U 5826/07, decided on March 13, 2008.[10] Almost identical wording appears in several other cases.[11]

A more restrictive minority view notably employed by Wilhelm Nordemann helds that the presence of the work in question has to be entirely inevitable and, also, negligible to such a degree that it could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer.[12] This implies that the actual subject needs to be so dominant in comparison that the work in question can be replaced without altering its overall impression.[13] As soon as the work is integrated into a scene or a picture—irrespective of whether its appearance was accidental in first place or not—, § 57 UrhG can no longer apply.[14]

Whether a work constitutes a marginal accessory in this sense is determined from the perspective of an “objective observer”; it is hence irrelevant what e.g. a photographer or film maker intended to show; what matters is only the result as perceived from an objective stance.[15]

Examples
  • A popular example in the literature is the appearance of a painting during a movie. The example is taken from the official reasoning for § 57 UrhG where it is stated that as long as the protected painting is not the main subject of the scene, this constitutes an example of a marginal accessory. However, this notion is rejected by both case law[16] and the literature; it is held instead that oftentimes, such paintings will have an influence on the atmosphere and can thus be characteristic for the scene. In that spirit, the Munich High Court decided that the publisher of a furniture catalogue cannot invoke § 57 UrhG in order to justify that protected artwork was visible in the background to some of his pictures of interior landscapes.[16]
  • On the other hand, it was also held by the same court that a T-shirt designer could not take steps against the publication of a magazine cover photo the subject of which was wearing a T-shirt created by the designer because it was argued that the motive on the T-shirt had no relation to the person and the topic he was supposed to illustrate.[17] (A copy of the cover can be found in the decision by the previous court, see for instance, LG München I 21 O 4956/07.[18]
  • Another common example from the literature is the television coverage of a speech of an MP whose copyright-protected jewelry is visible; this is considered a classical case of a marginal accessory.[19]
  • Gunda Dreyer points out that a photographer may not invoke to § 57 UrhG with respect to copyright-protected exhibits that appear in the background of a museum director who speaks on the inauguration festivities of his museum, while arguing that the appearance of a painting in the background of a politician speaking in the parliament is regularly covered by the exception clause due to its lacking relation to the main object.[20]
  • A musical work can be unwesentliches Beiwerk in a documentary if it just accidentally can be heard through an open window; however, as soon as it is technically edited afterwards and thereby made part of the documentary, §57 UrhG cannot apply anymore.[21]

Freedom of panorama

See also: [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Freedom of panorama|Commons:Freedom of panorama]]  OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

It is possible by §59 UrhG of the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. This suggests two major properties (permanence and public display) which will be outlined below.[22]

Public

The criterion "public" requires the way/street/place to be both dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible. Note that despite the ambiguous wording, this restriction refers to the place from which the picture is taken. The work shown does not need to be publicly-accessible, although, depending on the object shown, there may of course be restrictions based on privacy or personality rights.[23]

"Public", here, is not to be understood in a public-law sense. It bears no importance who owns the way/street/place as long as the aforementioned criteria are fulfilled.[24] There is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG.[25] Whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial.[26]

In this spirit, the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place (BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus) In the literature, station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public.[27] Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial.[28]

Graveyards, in turn, are often used as an example for a place which is public despite the fact that it might not be accessible all day.[29] Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG.[30]

For works of architecture, the provision is applicable only to the external appearance, barring, for instance, the application to pictures of interior staircases, interior courtyards or sculptures exhibited in a museum. (The reproduction of a work that otherwise would not be covered by § 59 UrhG is also not allowed if that work is visible only by accident, e.g. through an open door or window.[31] As is the case more generally with § 59 UrhG, this applies irrespective of whether or not permission was given to take photographs there.

In a 2017 verdict, the Federal Court of Justice found that freedom of panorama extends also to artwork that is displayed on the hulls of ships.[32]

Permanent

The second important criterion for the application of § 59 UrhG is the permanent display of the work. The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002 that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication.[33] The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” Based on this, the Court ruled that the photographic reproduction of a work photographed in the context of a two-week long exposition cannot be subsumed under § 59 UrhG because the temporary character of the exposition clearly showed that no permanent presentation was intended, noting that it also did not matter that the work—the Wrapped Reichstag—had only been created for the purpose of the exposition and was destroyed afterwards. On the other hand, ephemeral works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice or sand sculptures, chalk paintings on streets but also graffiti on exterior walls (which are likely to be painted over at some point) are typically considered permanent.[34]

It should be emphasized again that, in all these considerations, what matters is the intended, not the actual duration of the presentation: If, say, a building is accidentally destroyed two days after its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59 UrhG. Further examples: Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59 UrhG due to a lack of permanent display.[35] Advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature.[36]

However, advertisements and applied art displayed on vehicles such as buses and tramways were found to have a permanent nature by the Federal Court of Justice.[32]

Prohibition of alteration

German copyright law does not allow the publication or public display of modifications or derivative works of works created under the provision of § 59 UrhG. However, it is generally common sense in the literature that modifications inevitable due to the reproduction method used do not already constitute a violation of § 62 (1) UrhG (c.f. § 62 (3) UrhG); the partial reproduction of works is also generally considered to be in accordance with the law.[37]

Note that pursuant to § 63 UrhG, it is also necessary to properly attribute the author.

Application to all protected works

§ 59 UrhG applies to all copyrighted works, regardless of their category, as long as they are reproduced “by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography” (§ 59 (1) UrhG).[38] Most importantly, this includes works of artistic art, such as paintings, fountains or sculptures, but, for instance, also poems or songs displayed on a commemorative plaque.[39] It does, however, not apply to, e.g., the recording of a musical performance in the public. Germany’s implementation is one of the best-known, known locally as Panoramafreiheit (which roughly translates to “panorama freedom,” hence our usage of the term “freedom of panorama”).

Examples from court rulings

Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (OLG Brandenburg), 2010 / Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 2010: No applicability of FOP with respect to images taken inside of several parks (most importantly, Sanssouci Park) owned by a foundation under public law. The objects shown on the photographs could mostly be seen only from the inside. The BGH in this respect upheld the decision under appeal (without elaborating on the specific question of “FOP”). OLG Brandenburg outlined that the “parks and the ways therein [i.e. in the park] from which the photographs were taken do not qualify as public. That would require them to be dedicated to public use, though not necessarily in a public-law sense, and the provision of free entrance.

Based on that, it is not sufficient that the parks, surrounded by fences, are intentionally accessible through gates that stand open throughout the day.” The OLG notes that the fact that gates are closed over night does not necessarily mean that the park cannot be considered “public,” but holds that based on the treaty governing the purpose of the foundation and its statutes based on this treaty suggest otherwise. The use by the public is marked by “recreational, educational and cultural purposes. The ways inside the parks also are not for general traffic, but serve the purpose of leading visitors to the individual formative elements.” Furthermore, the OLG holds that at the time of their erection, the buildings within the parks “served the purpose of use by the royal/imperial family and were not supposed to be accessible by the public.”[40]

Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG Köln), 2012: A famous five year old installation of the words “Liebe deine Stadt” (considered a work of fine art) on the roof of a building qualifies for FOP. The court makes lengthy reference to the 2002 Wrapped Reichstag decision by the BGH (see above) and concludes that “under these standards, it cannot be denied that the work is ‘permanently’ located in the public space—regardless of the plaintiff's intentions, the fact that the property owner only gives permission for one year or a few consecutive years at a time, and the particular characteristics of the installation. By now, the installation has been at the same place for five years, which is significantly longer than the typical duration of a temporary exhibition. Its removal would be tantamount to the destruction of the art piece, even if the sign were to be used elsewhere.”[41]

Mannheim Regional Court (LG Mannheim), 1997: The sculpture—the so-called Holbeinpferd—was created in 1936 and originally unicolored; however, it has repeatedly been painted over and otherwise modified (without the owner's permission) in recent years. The defendant published a photograph of such a modified version and digitally manipulated it, adding a Santa Claus costume to the horse. LG Mannheim found that FOP would have applied to an ordinary photograph of the sculpture even in its modified form, but that the digital manipulations by the defendant violate § 62 (1) UrhG.[42]

Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 2017: The distinctive logo of AIDA cruises on the bows of their ships had been subject to a lawsuit regarding freedom of panorama. The court ruled that is was legal to take photos of this decoration on AIDA ships and post them online without consent from the shipping company. A work was deemed to be permanently displayed in public places if "from a common point of view it was determined to be so." Freedom of panorama would therefore also include vehicles participating in public traffic. Applied art in advertisements on buses and tramways was cited as an example.[32]

Stamps

See also: Commons:Stamps/Public domain  

According to a decision by a German regional court (Landgericht Berlin) in a case of the heirs of German artist Loriot against the Wikimedia Foundation, announced 27 March 2012, German postage stamps are not "official works" according to § 5 I or II UrhG and are therefore not in the public domain, as previously assumed on Commons.

Stamps of other private entities are copyrighted as well. However, the usual German copyright expiration term applies - copyright expires 70 years after 1 January after death of the creator. Some individual stamps may be copyright-free for other reasons (e.g. simple graphic design). For a further discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps

Outdated license templates, to be deleted or changed

See Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.

Threshold of originality

See also: [[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Threshold of originality|Commons:Threshold of originality]] Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the threshold of orginality for applied art; see this English summary for details. German copyright law: see also Schack, 2007.[43]

Examples of unprotected works:

See also

Citations

  1. § 69 Urheberrechtsgesetz (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  2. a b Germany Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG) Copyright Act of 9 September 1965 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1273), as last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 1 September 2017 (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-17.
  4. Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. September 1965 (BGBl. I S. 1273), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 1. September 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3346) geändert worden ist (in German) (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-17.
  5. de:Anonymes_Werk_(Urheberrecht)#Frühere_Rechtslage_in_Deutschland_/_Übergangsrecht Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland
  6. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.
  7. Geldscheinsammlung (in German). Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  8. Dreier/Schulze (2004) § 5 Rn. 11: „Nicht § 5 II UrhG unterfallen nach Ansicht zumindest des überwiegenden Teils der Literatur […] Banknoten, Münzen und Briefmarken (Wandtke/Bullinger/Marquardt § 5 Rn. 19; Häde ZUM 1991, 356; Schricker GRUR 1991, 645, 657ff.; vgl. jedoch die insoweit abweichende Entscheidung des LG München I GRUR 1987, 436 – Briefmarke)“. Die letztgenannte Entscheidung des LG München ist mittlerweile hinfällig. (in German)
  9. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (6) (original in German: „Zu diesem Hauptgegenstand darf unwesentliches Beiwerk […] keine noch so unbedeutende inhaltliche Beziehung aufweisen und hat durch seine Zufälligkeit und Beliebigkeit für ihn ohne jede Bedeutung zu sein.“).
  10. 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), in German
  11. Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); similar Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2).
  12. Wilhelm Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 57 (2); similar Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (229).
  13. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German); Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (6); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (2); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2000), § 57 (8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2); Wolfgang Maaßen, Bildzitate in Gerichtsentscheidungen und juristischen Publikationen. ZUM 2003, 830, 837.
  14. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (10).
  15. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German); OLG München, 6 U 4132/87 (= NJW 1989, 404 – Abdruck von Kunstwerken in Werbeprospekten), decided on June 9, 1988; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (10); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (4); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2000), § 57 (6); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (3); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 57 (2); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (230).
  16. a b OLG München, 6 U 4132/87 (= NJW 1989, 404 – Abdruck von Kunstwerken in Werbeprospekten), decided on June 9, 1988.
  17. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German).
  18. LG München I 21 O 4956/07 (in German). Kanzlei Prof. Schweizer (24 October 2007). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  19. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (9); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (7).
  20. Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (5, 8).
  21. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (8); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (8).
  22. Jan Fritz Geiger, Maximilian Herberger. Die Panoramafreiheit aus methodischer Sicht - eine Anmerkung zu BGH, Urteil vom 05.06.2003, Az. I ZR 192/00 "Hundertwasser-Haus"(1) (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  23. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4, 5); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (238); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  24. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  25. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (7, 10); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (241); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  26. Supportive: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); undecided: Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4)
  27. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); dissenting: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  28. Supportive: Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); apparently dissenting: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2)
  29. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  30. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9) for admission control; Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  31. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5) („sichtbar ist und sein soll”); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (8); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  32. a b c Bundesgerichtshof zur Panoramafreiheit. Der Bundesgerichtshof (2017-04-27). Retrieved on 2017-05-21.
  33. BGH, I ZR 102/99 (KG) – Verhüllter Reichstag, decided on January 24, 2002.
  34. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (15); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (244); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); regarding graffiti: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); regarding graffiti and chalk paintings: Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (8).
  35. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5).
  36. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5) for “advertisements on billboards or advertising columns” because they are “pasted over or destroyed on removal”.
  37. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (19); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 109.
  38. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (6–8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (7); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (2).
  39. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (2); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  40. BGH, V ZR 45/10 = GRUR 2011, 323 – Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, decided on December 17, 2010; OLG Brandenburg, 5 U 13/09 = GRUR 2010, 927 – Verwertung von Fotografien von öffentlich zugänglichen Gärten, decided on February 18, 2002.
  41. OLG Köln, 6 U 193/11 – Liebe deine Stadt, decided on March 12, 2012.
  42. LG Mannheim, 7 S 4/96 – Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, February 14, 1997
  43. Schack, Haimo (in german) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, pp. 118
  44. BVerfG, decision of 26 January 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer