Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/sk

< Commons:Copyright rules by territory
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany and the translation is 4% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Copyright rules: Germany
Shortcut: COM:GERMANY
Flag of Germany
Map of Germany
Durations
Standard Life + 70 years
Anonymous Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama Yes
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{{PD-EU-unpublished}}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}}
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
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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.

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 2019, the main copyright law of Germany is the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG). In general, the current (consolidated) text of the law is provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and can be found here. An unofficial English translation is also available courtesy of the Ministry—see here—, but often does not reflect the most recent amendments, so you may wish to review the "Version information" at the top.

Summary of copyright terms

Standard term for works

As of 2019, the standard copyright term for works is life + 70 years.[3]

Anonymous and pseudonymous works

The treatment of anonymous and pseudonymous works in copyright law changed in 1995. Since then, for all anonymous or pseudonymous works created prior to 1 July 1995 the term of copyright must be calculated as follows: Calculate the point of expiry under the old law (the "old method"), then calculate the point of expiry under the new law (the "current method"). Copyright expires on whichever date comes last.[4]

The old method

Unpublished works: The term of copyright is life + 70 years (the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works did not apply to unpublished works).[5]

Published works: It was controversial whether the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works applied to all published works or only to so-called released works (verbreitete Werke).[6] ("Released" is a special case of "published".[7]A work is deemed to have been released "when copies of the work have been offered, with the rightholder's consent, to the public or brought to the market after their production in sufficient quantity", § 6(2) UrhG. By way of example, when a new film is shown on television, that makes it a "published" work, but not yet a "released" one.[8] Once DVDs of the film are distributed to stores, it would also be considered "released".)

That aside, the general rules were as follows:[9] If and only if the following three conditions are met:

  1. Dielo nie je dielom výtvarného umenia a
  2. na uvoľnenej/zverejnenej kópii diela nebolo zvyčajným spôsobom uvedené skutočné meno autora ani jeho známy pseudonym a
  3. nebolo uvedené skutočné meno autora ani jeho známy pseudonym v súvislosti s verejným oznámením diela

then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless

  1. the work was published (again) within that period of time and this time the author was designated with their real name or their known pseudonym in the usual manner on a published copy or
  2. the author has become known in some other way within that period of time, or
  3. an application was filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
  4. the work has never been published during the lifetime of the author.

If any of these four conditions is met, then the term of copyright was life + 70 years.[10]

The current method

Unpublished works: If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires.[11]

Published works: The copyright term for anonymous and pseudonymous works is 70 years after publication unless

  1. autor v tejto lehote odhalí svoju totožnosť, príp
  2. v tejto lehote je podaná žiadosť o zápis mena autora do evidencie anonymných a pseudonymných diel, príp.
  3. pseudonym, ktorý si autor osvojil, nezanecháva žiadne pochybnosti o jeho totožnosti.

If any of these three cases applies, the term of copyright is life + 70 years instead.[12]

Two miscellaneous comments on these provisions are in order: First, it should be noted that the prevailing view is that the term "work of fine art" in (A) also applies to works of applied art and architectural works;[13] it does not extend to photographic works.[14] This implies that the copyright term of works like oil paintings, sculptures, or buildings created before July 1 1995 is, effectively, always life + 70 years, irrespective of whether they would otherwise qualify as anonymous/pseudonymous. Second, as a practical matter, condition (2) is particularly problematic. It is very much unclear how one would ascertain whether the author "has become known in some other way" during the 70 years following the work's (first) publication. Courts have so far not provided meaningful guidance on the issue. Academic commentators seem to advocate a rather low bar. In the view of Paul Katzenberger, "it was sufficient if a not completely insignificant part of the relevant public became aware of the author's identity[;] by no means was it necessary that [the identity] became general knowledge".[15]

Related rights

  • 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

Section 5(1) works

Not protected

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:Unprotected works

Under § 5(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), acts, statutory instruments, official decrees and official notices, decisions, and official headnotes of decisions do not enjoy copyright protection.

The fuzziest element within this enumeration is perhaps the fourth, "official notices" (amtliche Bekanntmachungen). According to the Federal Court of Justice, such notices need to have "regulatory substance"—the provision is not intended to render unprotected "merely informatory expressions by an administrative body".[16] More broadly, the Court held that § 5(1) as a whole applies only to works that contain a "normative or individual legal stipulation" (normative oder einzelfallbezogene rechtliche Regelung) for only in this case there is a "sufficient public interest in the distribution to justify the exception from copyright with no strings attached".[17] "Decisions" are decisions by federal or state courts or administrative authorities that, as judgements, court orders, official ordinances, etc, contain legally binding stipulations.[18]

An important question for this project is whether § 5(1) is capable of applying to all types of works. A 2012 decision by the Berlin Regional Court (which has garnered some attention by users of this project as the lawsuit was brought against the Wikimedia Foundation) followed some academic and non-judicial commentators in holding that § 5(1) applies exclusively to literary works (Sprachwerke).[19] This view has been criticised by others who have pointed out that official decrees, decisions, etc may very well contain other types of works and that it would defeat the purpose of § 5(1) if these all had to be removed prior to publication.[20]

The prevailing view is that § 5(1) does not apply to currency (notes and coins),[21] postage stamps,[22] or official coats of arms (although the latter thus far have not nearly received as much academic—let alone judicial—attention).[23] Those who deem § 5(1) applicable to non-literary works mostly agree that the provision applies to land-use plans (Bebauungspläne) pursuant to § 8(1) of the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch), which contain legally binding designations for urban development,[24] as well as to official road signs.[25] Most maps and plans originating in government, however, do not qualify for subsection 1 but either for subsection 2 (see below) or are not considered "official works" at all. According to the Federal Court of Justice, for instance, topographic maps issued by the state offices for survey are not official works under copyright law.[26]

Section 5(2) works

Section 5(2) broadens the scope of application of the German official works provision, stating that "official works published in the official interest for general information purposes" also do not enjoy copyright protection.[27] However, these works—unlike the § 5(1) works described above—may not be modified (prohibition of alteration, § 62) and when using them the source must be acknowledged (§ 63). Due to these requirements, there has been some discussion on this project whether official works pursuant to § 5(2) should be accepted.[28] As of 2019, the prevailing view seems to be that we may not rely on § 5(2): The {{PD-GermanGov}} template refers exclusively to § 5(1) as a possible justification.[29] We will therefore forego a more thorough analysis of § 5(2) on this page.


Šablóny licencií

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:Šablóny licencií

  • {{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.

Currency

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:Currency

    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.

[30]

  • 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.[31] This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimis

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:De minimis


Under § 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."

The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public.[32] The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.[33]To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.[34]

According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case

  1. if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
  2. if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[35]

The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:

  1. The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
  2. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
  3. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or
  1. the work is characteristic in any other way.[36]

Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.[37]

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:[38]

There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around § 57.[39] In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on § 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.[40]

In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.[41]

Freedom of panorama

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:Freedom of panorama


    {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

General

Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".[42]

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography.[43]

The German freedom of panorama limitation is thus capable of applying to photographs of works of artistic art (such as paintings, fountains, sculptures, or photographic works) as well as to pictures of poems and song lyrics inscribed on commemorative plaques.[44]

For the exception to arise, two principal conditions must be met: The work must be located in a place that is "public" and the work needs to be located there "permanently". The two conditions are discussed in more detail below.

Public

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place.[45] In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public.[46] It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.[47] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of § 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place.[48] To simplify life for photographers and re-users of their pictures, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a given photograph of a work could have been made from a public place, it was in fact made from a public place.[49]

When a photographer has used special tools (such as a ladder) to create the picture or has taken the picture after removing objects that otherwise would have shielded the work from the public eye (think of a photographer brushing aside the branches of a hedge to get a better view of a sculpture), § 59(1) cannot be relied upon for the resulting view is no longer part of what the general public can visually perceive from the public place.[50] Based on the same reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice has held that aerial photography does not meet the requirements of § 59(1).[51] (In a 2020 decision, a regional court challenged this view, holding that the decision of the Federal Court of Justice is no longer good law as EU law compels German courts to extend the freedom of panorama to photographs created from the airspace as long as the works shown are located in public spaces.[52] In a separate case, however, a higher regional court in 2023 squarely rejected that position.[53] The court did allow an appeal, though, which as of November 2023 is pending before the Federal Court of Justice.[54]) There is some controversy in the legal literature as to whether telephoto lenses should also be treated as impermissible tools—the majority of commentators answers this in the affirmative.[55]

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.[56] Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public.[57] Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces.[58] The status of atria and passages is controversial.[59] On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Graveyards are often cited as an example of a place that is public despite the fact that it is often closed during night hours.[60] Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1).[61] Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for § 59(1).[62]

The location alternatives listed in § 59(1) ("streets", "ways", and "open spaces") are merely illustrative; freedom of panorama also extends, inter alia, to what can be seen from international and coastal waters, waterways, and ocean harbours.[63]

Permanent

 
Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798): protected work of art ("Smiling Lips") on the bow and the hull of a cruise ship
(design by Feliks Büttner; pictured here near Funchal, Madeira)
 
Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390): protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall
("Hommage an die junge Generation" by Thierry Noir, East Side Gallery)
 
Permanently located in a public place (see Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593) based on having been in place for five years: installation by Merlin Bauer (protected as a work of art) on a rooftop in Cologne, Germany, Nord-Süd-Fahrt

To meet the condition as to permanence, a work does not need to remain at its location during its entire existence. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the proper test is whether the display or the erection of the work in a public place, as perceived by an objective observer, serves the purpose of a not-merely-temporary presentation.[64] In a more recent decision, the Court clarified that a work is permanently located in a public place if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time".[65] On that basis, the Court determined that a work presented to the public for just two weeks—the so-called Wrapped Reichstag—cannot be reproduced under § 59(1). In the same vein, a regional court held that an artistic "grass sofa" installed in a freely accessible garden for many years without any indication of an end date of the exhibition, is located there permanently.[66] These cases must be distinguished from the case of ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time.[67] The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).[68]

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display.[69] There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.[70]

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not need to remain in one and the same place—its location may change.[71] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a protected work of art on the bow of a cruise ship meets the "permanence" condition because the artwork and the cruise ship "are intended to be located for a long time in (different) public places".[72] In the view of the Court, this seems to apply more broadly to "street cars, omnibuses, or even freight vehicles", which are "increasingly being used as an advertising medium and at least a non-negligible share of the designs attached to such vehicles are copyright-protected as works of applied art".[73]

Additional requirement for architectural works

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.[74] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.[75]

Prohibition of alteration

Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama.[76] The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt", pictured) and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph.[77] Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted.[78] Partial reproductions are generally allowed, even if essential parts of the work are left out and even if it would be possible to reproduce the work as whole.[79]

Acknowledgement of source

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged.[80] The "source" generally includes the name of the author, but goes beyond that, in that it shall enable a third party to identify the copy of the work that was depicted.[81]

While it is straightforward to apply the attribution requirement when the author is identified directly on/next to the particular copy of the depicted work, it is not entirely clear whether a photographer needs to undertake research (and if so, how thoroughly) when the author is not named on (in the vicinity of) the particular copy. It is widely believed that those who rely for their communication to the public on the freedom of panorama need to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author,[82] but the interpretations of that differ. Professor Dreier argues in his treatise, for instance, that when using pictures of works of architecture or applied art, less of an effort can be expected than in the case of pictures of works of fine art;[83] Dreyer J, writing extra-judicially, points out that what is reasonable depends primarily on the intensity of the use (publishers printing post cards depicting a work vs tourists giving photographs of a work to their acquaintances as gifts);[84] and Professor Götting argues that it seems unreasonable to him to make the user of a picture of an unsigned architectural work research the name of the author.[85]


Stamps

Pozri tiež: Commons:Stamps


 

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

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:Threshold of originality

Works of fine art (including works of applied art and architectural works)

"Works of fine art", as defined in § 2(1)(4) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), is a catch-all term for works of fine art in a stricter sense, works of applied art, and architectural works. Fine art is distinguished from applied art by its lack of a utilitarian purpose.[86] For many decades, courts imposed a higher threshold of originality on works of applied art than on works of fine art ("two-tier theory").[87] In 2013, however, the Federal Court of Justice expressly changed its jurisprudence, holding that "in general, the copyright protection of works of applied art is not subject to other requirements than the copyright protection of works of non-utilitarian fine art or of literary or musical creation. It is hence sufficient that they attain a level of creativity that allows a public open to art and relatively familiar with views on art to justifiably speak of 'artistic' creations".[88]

In assessing whether an article with a utilitarian purpose is protected by copyright, one must take into account, however, that the aesthetic effect of the article can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not dictated by the article's utilitarian purpose, but instead is based on an artistic effort.[89] Only those features of a utilitarian article that are not entirely dictated by the technical function can justify copyright protection.[90] A feature is considered "dictated by the technical function" if the article could not function without it.[91] This includes features that, for technical reasons, must necessarily be used in articles of the same kind as the article concerned, as well as features that, while being used for technical reasons, are freely selectable or interchangeable. To the extent that the design of such features is entirely dictated by their technical function, they are incapable of justifying copyright protection of the utilitarian article.[92]

Examples from court cases on applied art:[93]

Protection denied:

  • a climbing structure for playgrounds made of ropes (pictured in the decision, p 3 bottom) because the structure consists of freely selectable or interchangeable yet technically required features and does not exhibit artistic creativity;[94]
  • a wooden toy train ("birthday train") with wagons in which candles and numbers can be inserted (pictured in the decision, p 3) because there were similar-looking, pre-existing toy trains.[95]
  • a logo (pictured here in black and white) consisting of the text "Match by Audiotec Fischer" and the commonly used "fast-forward" symbol because neither the design of the text nor the design of the symbol ("widely used in the audio world") nor the combination of the two could be considered an artistic creation.[96]

Protection accorded:

  • a logo consisting of a mouth, eyes, and wave lines ("eyebrows") (pictured in the decision, p 3) (in the case at issue, the design was painted on the exterior of a ship and therefore could be reproduced under the freedom of panorama limitation);[97]
  • a toy train comprised of wooden animal figurines on wheels ("birthday caravan") (pictured in the decision, p 3) because it was a complete redesign of pre-existing toy trains, whose locomotive and waggons were replaced with animals, and the overall design (shapes, colours) was not the result of technical necessities but an expression of the author's artistic creativity;[98]
  • an urn emblazoned with an airbrushed depiction of a deer (pictured in the decision, on the left);[99]
  • a Birkenstock sandal (model "Madrid");[100]

In the past decades, court cases where protection as applied art was eventually accorded primarily revolved around renowned designer objects, in particular items of furniture and lamps.[103] A few more recent examples:

  • the "Wilhelm Wagenfeld table lamp";[105]
  • a brilliant-cut diamond ring ("Niessing-Spannring").[106]

Signatures

Skratka

Pozri tiež: Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag

German copyright law requires a high threshold of originality, called Schöpfungshöhe.

  OK for a typical signature. The relevant law is the Urheberrechtsgesetz, abbreviated UrhG. Paragraph 2(2) UrhG makes it clear that there is a threshold of originality that must be met: "Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen", which can be roughly translated as "According to this law, only personal intellectual creations are considered as works." The Schöpfungshöhe defines the minimal requirements that must be met for a work to become a copyrightable intellectual creation. In this context, signatures are comparable to simple graphics that just fulfill some practical purpose which are likewise not eligible for copyright as documented by following cases:

  • OLG Köln, 6 U 199/85 (GRUR 1986, 889) ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright including its animation
  • BVerfG 1 BvR 1571/02 ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright because it is a work of applied art serving a practical purpose which requires a higher threshold of originality

In general, simple type faces and signatures for practical purposes are not eligible for copyright. To quote from Haimo Schack: Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, p. 118:

"Dagegen wird ein Urheberschutz von Schriftzeichen von der Rechtssprechung in aller Regel verneint. Auch das einprägsame Signet der "ARD-1" erfüllte nicht die Anforderungen an eine persönliche geistige Schöpfung. Seit dem 1.6.2004 werden Schriftzeichen nicht mehr über das Schriftzeichengesetz, sondern unmittelbar als Geschmacksmuster geschützt (vgl § 61 GeschmMG)."

Rough translation:

"In contrast, copyright protection for typefaces is declined by the prevailing case law. Even the catchy logo "ARD-1" did not fulfil the requirements of a personal intellectual creation. Since 1 June 2004 type faces are no longer protected by the Schriftzeichengesetz (law for type faces) but as design patents (see § 61 GeschmMG)."

See also de:Rechtsschutz von Schriftzeichen#Schutz handschriftlicher Schriftarten und Gestaltungen.

However, there may still be copyright be if the signature is sufficiently complex to become a protectable artistic work (e.g. because it has more creativity than this image - see above).

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ § 69 Urheberrechtsgesetz (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  2. ↑ Germany Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. ↑ Section 64 UrhG.
  4. ↑ For if under the new rules the copyright term would be shorter than what it used to be under the old law, then the old term continues to apply. Section 137f(1) UrhG, 1st sentence. See generally P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 66" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; W Gass, "§ 66" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 16. Conversely, if the copyright term under the current provisions is longer than what it used to be under the old law, then the new rules apply. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12.
  5. ↑ P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) para 25; T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 14; O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) § 66, para 2.
  6. ↑ See P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) paras 25ff. for a thorough review of the literature and the underlying arguments.
  7. ↑ A Nordemann, "§ 6" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 4.
  8. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 6 February 2014, case I ZR 86/12 Peter Fechter, (2014) 67 NJW 1888 [34]–[36].
  9. ↑ Sections 66(1), 66(4) UrhG; see generally P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) paras 29ff.
  10. ↑ Section 66(2) UrhG [old version]
  11. ↑ Section 66(1) UrhG, 1st sentence.
  12. ↑ Sections 66(2) and 66(3) UrhG.
  13. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 16; W Gass, "§ 66" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 35; probably E Ulmer, Urheber- und Verlagsrecht (3rd edn, Springer 1980) 144. Contra O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) § 66, para 2.
  14. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 16; Oberlandesgericht München 12 June 1967, case 6 AR 24/67, (1968) 51 UFITA 377, 379.
  15. ↑ P Katzenberger, "§ 66" in G Schricker and U Loewenheim (eds), Urheberrecht (4th edn, Beck 2010) para 42; in the same vein: O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) § 66, para 2.
  16. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 20 July 2006, case I ZR 185/03 Bodenrichtwertsammlung, (2007) 109 GRUR 137 [13].
  17. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 20 July 2006, case I ZR 185/03 Bodenrichtwertsammlung, (2007) 109 GRUR 137 [14].
  18. ↑ P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 46; C Arnold, Amtliche Werke im Urheberrecht: Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit und analogen Anwendbarkeit des § 5 UrhG (Nomos 1994) 94; MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 12.
  19. ↑ Landgericht Berlin 27 March 2012, case 15 O 377/11 Loriot-Briefmarken, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 399, 402. In the same vein: T Dreier, "§ 5" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 4 ("written works"); H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 10.
  20. ↑ JB Nordemann, "§ 5" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 10. See also P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 68 (subsection 1 applicable to official road signs as they are part of a law). Cf C Arnold, Amtliche Werke im Urheberrecht: Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit und analogen Anwendbarkeit des § 5 UrhG (Nomos 1994) 104 (subsection 1 limited to "texts", which also includes at least illustrations of a scientific or technical nature).
  21. ↑ On those, see COM:CUR Germany.
  22. ↑ Landgericht Berlin 27 March 2012, case 15 O 377/11 Loriot-Briefmarken, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 399, 402; H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 14; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 68; EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 19; G Dreyer, "§ 5" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20; H-P Götting and U Loewenheim, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (3rd edn, Beck 2021) para 10; D Leuze, Urheberrechte der Beschäftigten im öffentlichen Dienst (3rd edn, Erich Schmidt 2008) 40; D Dünnwald, Der Urheber im öffentlichen Dienst (Nomos 1999) 133; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 632; H Schack, Kunst und Recht (3rd edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 276; M von Albrecht, Amtliche Werke und Schranken des Urheberrechts zu amtlichen Zwecken in fünfzehn europäischen Ländern (VVF 1992) 52; G Schricker, "Zum Urheberrechtsschutz und Geschmacksmusterschutz von Postwertzeichen – Teil II" (1991) 93 GRUR 645, 647ff; P Katzenberger, "Die Frage des urheberrechtlichen Schutzes amtlicher Werke" (1972) 74 GRUR 686, 694. Note that for those who believe that § 5(1) is incapable of applying to non-literary works to begin with (see above for references), this is a simple corollary. Contra Landgericht München 10 March 1987, case 21 S 20861/86, (1987) 89 GRUR 436, 436f (stating that "the postage stamp has lost the copyright protection it enjoyed during the drafting stage when it was included in the Official Journal of the Minister of Post and Telecommunications"); A Peukert, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (19th edn, Beck 2023) § 25, para 12 (stating that privately created works can also constitute official works, giving the example of "officially announced stamps"); J von Ungern-Sternberg, "Werke privater Urheber als amtliche Werke" (1977) 79 GRUR 766, 768 (because "postage stamps of the Bundespost are announced with pictures some time prior to their issuance in the Official Journal of the Minister of Post and Telecommunications" and are therefore in the public domain as part of an official notice).
  23. ↑ H Ahlberg, "§ 5" in H Ahlberg and K Nicolini (eds), Möhring/Nicolini: Urheberrechtsgesetz (2nd edn, Vahlen 2000) para 14; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 68; D Dünnwald, Der Urheber im öffentlichen Dienst (Nomos 1999) 133. J von Ungern-Sternberg ("Werke privater Urheber als amtliche Werke" (1977) 79 GRUR 766, 768) seems to consider coats of arms official works pursuant to § 5(2) rather than § 5(1). Again, for those who believe that § 5(1) is incapable of applying to non-literary works to begin with (see above for references), this is a simple corollary.
  24. ↑ JB Nordemann, "§ 5" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 15; MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 7; EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 8; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) paras 68f.
  25. ↑ MCG Marquardt, "§ 5" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 7; P Katzenberger and A Metzger, "§ 5" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 68; T Dreier, "§ 5" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 8. Contra EI Obergfell, "§ 5" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 8 (who argues that they fall under subsection 2).
  26. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 2 July 1987, case I ZR 232/85 Topographische Landeskarten, (1988) 41 NJW 337, 338f.
  27. ↑ Somewhat misleadingly, in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 19 August 2019) the phrase "amtliche Werke" in § 5(2) is incorrectly translated as "official texts" rather than "official works".
  28. ↑ See, for instance, Commons talk:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review#PD-GermanGov and related (perma); Template talk:PD-GermanGov#§ 5 Abs. 2 UrhG (perma); see also de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2009/12#Amtliche Werke / §5 Abs. 2 UrhG.
  29. ↑ See also the notice at the top of Template talk:PD-GermanGov (perma).
  30. ↑ Geldscheinsammlung (in German). Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  31. ↑ 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)
  32. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [16].
  33. ↑ M Vogel, "§ 57" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 8; T Dreier, "§ 57" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 1.
  34. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [26f].
  35. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  36. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [27].
  37. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13 Möbelkatalog, (2015) 68 NJW 2119 [31].
  38. ↑ Appeals court level or higher.
  39. ↑ R Jacobs, "Was ist "beiläufig"? Ein Beitrag zu § 57 UrhG" in W Büscher and others (eds), Rechtsdurchsetzung: Rechtsverwirklichung durch materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Ahrens zum 70. Geburtstag (Heymanns 2016), 225; FL Stang, "Bundesgerichtshof 17 November 2014, case I ZR 177/13" (2015) 117 GRUR 670 (note).
  40. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 10 January 2019, case I ZR 267/15 Cordoba II, (2019) 121 GRUR 813 [59].
  41. ↑ Oberlandesgericht München 13 March 2008, case 29 U 5826/07, (2008) 12 ZUM-RD 554.
  42. ↑ Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), § 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).
  43. ↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.
  44. ↑ See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 18.
  45. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].
  46. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19.
  47. ↑ See Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  48. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  49. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].
  50. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; see also CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 140ff.
  51. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037. See also H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 609; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22. Cf Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35] (photographs created through use of a ladder not covered by the freedom of panorama).
  52. ↑ Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 25 November 2020, case 2-06 O 136/20, (2021) 25 ZUM-RD 155 = openJur 2021, 5952.
  53. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamm 27 April 2023, case I-4 U 247/21 Drohnenaufnahmen, (2023) 125 GRUR 1018 = openJur 2023, 5924.
  54. ↑ Docket No. I ZR 67/23.
  55. ↑ See C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  56. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [23]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19. See also Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577 (holding that a freely accessible park owned by a charitable foundation is public).
  57. ↑ M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. But see Bundesgerichtshof 17 December 2010, case V ZR 45/10 Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, (2011) 64 NJW 749, 751 (affirming the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at anspany time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.
  58. ↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 137; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 476. Contra S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.
  59. ↑ In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 135f. Opposed: C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  60. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. See also Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33] ("The fact that the ship may at times not be located in publicly accessible places [...] does not preclude the application of § 59(1)").
  61. ↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6 ("private property that has constant public exposure but is not freely accessible due to fencing and entry controls"); S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3 ("private property that is not freely accessible due to fences and controls"); EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3 ("fencing, access control, and similar"); M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20 ("private property with access control").
  62. ↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 133. See also the official motives accompanying the draft bill proposing the UrhG, Bundestag Printed Paper IV/270 of 23 March 1962, p 76 (stating that "the artwork permanently exhibited in public museums" shall not be privileged for it is "not to the same degree dedicated to the public as the works erected in public squares"). Cf Oberlandesgericht Köln 5 May 2000, case 6 U 21/00 Gies-Adler, (2000) [53] NJW 2212, 2213 (denying freedom of panorama for photographs of a work of art inside the former house of parliament on the grounds that it is not located in a public street, way, or public open space).
  63. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].
  64. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.
  65. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32]. It is readily apparent that the actual duration of the presentation does not matter: If, say, a fountain is inadvertedly destroyed two days following its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59(1) in respect of the pictures created during the two days of its existence. See M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) paras 26, 28; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.
  66. ↑ Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.
  67. ↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 8; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 610. Contra T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 205. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  68. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.
  69. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 18; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.
  70. ↑ In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27 (departing from the view expressed in the previous edition); CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  71. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].
  72. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].
  73. ↑ Not entirely clear from Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [29] on account of the discussion taking place in relation to the "public" requirement, but see the various notes on the judgement, eg T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in H-J Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 204; M Stieper, "Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes im Urheber- und Designrecht – Anmerkung zu BGH ZUM 2017, 766 – AIDA-Kussmund" (2017) 61 ZUM 770 [771]; D Ettig (2017) 63 WRP 955 (note) para 13.
  74. ↑ Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.
  75. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 8.
  76. ↑ Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.
  77. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.
  78. ↑ Section 62(3) so provides for artistic works and photographic works. In the literature, this is extended to architectural works. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 33; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.
  79. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 [41], [43]. But see M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 11 (arguing that in certain cases the partial reproduction may not comply with the three-step test pursuant to art 5(5) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), art 10(2) of the WCT, and art 13 of the TRIPS Agreement).
  80. ↑ Section 63.
  81. ↑ W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) paras 11f; A Dustmann, "§ 63" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6. Cf Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 15 October 1996, case 6 U 177/96 Stimme Brecht, (1997) 50 NJW 1162, 1163 (in the context of the quotation limitation, which is also subject to § 63).
  82. ↑ See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 34; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.
  83. ↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12.
  84. ↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.
  85. ↑ H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (3rd edn, Beck 2021) para 44.
  86. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [17].
  87. ↑ See, in particular, Bundesgerichtshof 27 November 1956, case I ZR 57/55 Morgenpost, 22 BGHZ 209, 215ff; Bundesgerichtshof 22 June 1995, case I ZR 119/93 Silberdistel, (1995) 97 GRUR 581, 582. See further A Ohly, "Where is the Birthday Train Heading? The Copyright-Design Interface in German Law" in G Karnell and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Jan Rosén (eddy.se ab 2016) 593ff.
  88. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [26].
  89. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 13 November 2013, case I ZR 143/12 Geburtstagszug, 199 BGHZ 52 [41].
  90. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [19].
  91. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  92. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [20].
  93. ↑ Appeals court level or higher. Omitted here are cases where copyright protection was denied based on the now-abandoned "two-tier theory".
  94. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 12 May 2011, case I ZR 53/10 Seilzirkus, (2012) 114 GRUR 58 [30].
  95. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [17]–[23].
  96. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 12 June 2019, case 11 U 51/18, (2019) 63 ZUM 787, 788f.
  97. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [11].
  98. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 11 September 2014, case 6 U 74/10 Geburtstagszug II, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 1 [29]–[31]. Finding of copyright protection not challenged on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 16 June 2016, case I ZR 122/14 Geburtstagskarawane, (2016) 118 GRUR 1291.
  99. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 20 February 2015, case 6 U 131/14 Airbrush-Urnen, (2015) 15 GRUR-RR 275 [14]–[16].
  100. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 October 2021, case 5 W 40/21 Grand Step Shoes, (2022) 124 GRUR 565 [22]–[26].
  101. ↑ Bundesgerichtshof 7 April 2022, case I ZR 222/20 Porsche 911, (2022) 124 GRUR 899 [26]–[32].
  102. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2023, case 5 U 84/21, (2023) 27 ZUM-RD 481.
  103. ↑ S Zentek, "Acht Jahrzehnte verkanntes Design im deutschen Urheberrecht: Die Geschichte des Schutzes von Gebrauchsgestaltungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nationalsozialismus" (doctoral thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 2015) 276. See also L Mezger, Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschem und europäischem Recht (V&R unipress 2017) 60f ("hardly possible" in particular to keep track of the jurisprudence on designer furniture).
  104. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 27 April 2011, case 5 U 26/09; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 91/11 Marcel-Breuer­-Möbel II, (2016) 69 NJW 2335 [26]–[28].
  105. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 30 March 2011, case 5 U 207/08; affirmed in pertinent part on appeal: Bundesgerichtshof 5 November 2015, case I ZR 76/11 Wagenfeld-Leuchte II, (2016) 69 NJW 2338 [20]–[22].
  106. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 30 May 2000, case 20 U 4/99 Spannring, (2001) 1 GRUR-RR 294, 296.
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. Pozri tiež: Commons:General disclaimer
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany/sk&oldid=832982585"