Open main menu
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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

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 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 current law:]

Published works: Generally, the copyright term for anonymous and pseudonymous works is 70 years after publication, unless

  1. the author reveals their identity within that period of time, or
  2. an application is filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
  3. the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity.

If any of these three cases applies, the term of copyright is life + 70 years instead.[4]

Unpublished works: If, on the other hand, the anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, the copyright expires.[5]

[Transitional provisions for works created before 1 July 1995:] Unfortunately, because the above rules used to be different, an important transitional provision needs to be taken into account: If the work was created prior to 1 July 1995 and if under the above rules, the copyright term would be shorter than what it used to be under the old law, then the old term continues to apply.[6] Thus, before we can use a seemingly out-of-copyright anonymous or pseudonymous work from before 1 July 1995, we need to verify it would also be out of copyright under the old law. We therefore briefly review the old provision.

The old law:[7] Under the old law, the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works did not apply to unpublished works (and so their copyright term was always life + 70 years).[8] In fact, it was controversial whether they even applied to all published works or exclusively to so-called released works (verbreitete Werke).[9] ("Released" is a special case of "published".[10] 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", s 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.[11] Once DVDs of the film are distributed to stores, it would also be considered "released".)

That aside, the general rules were as follows:[12] If and only if the following three conditions are met:

  1. The work is not a work of fine art and
  2. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified in the usual manner on a released/published copy of the work, and
  3. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work

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 negative conditions is met, then the term of copyright was life + 70 years.[13]

Two miscellaneous comments on this provision 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;[14] it does not extend to photographic works.[15] This implies that the copyright term of works like oil paintings, sculptures, or buildings created before July 1 1995 is 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 that 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".[16]

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

By German law, documents are in the public domain (Public domain) 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.[17]

Copyright tags

See also: 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: 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.[18]
  • 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.[19] This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimis

See also: 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).[20] This wording is directly adopted by OLG München, 29 U 5826/07, decided on March 13, 2008.[21] Almost identical wording appears in several other cases.[22]

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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25]

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.[26]

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[27] 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.[27]
  • 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.[28] (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.[29]
  • 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.[30]
  • 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.[31]
  • 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.[32]

Freedom of panorama

See also: Commons:Freedom of panorama

 OK {{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".[33]

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography.[34] 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.[35]

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.[36] 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.[37] 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.[38] 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 s 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place.[39] 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.[40]

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), s 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.[41] For the same reason, aerial photography does not meet the requirements of s 59(1).[42] 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.[43]

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of s 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.[44] 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.[45] Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argues 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.[46] The status of atria and passages is controversial.[47] 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.[48] 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 s 59(1).[49] 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 s 59(1).[50]

The location alternatives listed in s 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.[51]

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.[52] 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".[53] 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 s 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.[54] 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.[55] The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).[56]

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under s 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display.[57] There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.[58]

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not to remain in one and the same place—its location may change.[59] 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".[60] 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".[61]

Additional requirement for architectural works

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.[62] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under s 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.[63]

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.[64] 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.[65] Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted.[66] 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.[67]

Acknowledgement of source

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged.[68] 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.[69]

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,[70] 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;[71] 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);[72] 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.[73]

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: 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.[74]

Examples of unprotected works:

See also

Citations

  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. Sections 66(2) and 66(3) UrhG.
  5. Section 66(1) UrhG, 1st sentence.
  6. 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. Note that if, on the contrary, 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 (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12.
  7. The text of s 66 UrhG prior to the 1995 amendments can be found here as part of Thomas Fuchs' Historisch-synoptische Edition of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights.
  8. 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 (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 13; O-F von Gamm, Urheberrecht (Beck 1968) s 66, para 2.
  9. 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.
  10. A Nordemann, "§ 6" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 4.
  11. Bundesgerichtshof 6 February 2014, case I ZR 86/12 Peter Fechter, (2014) 67 NJW 1888, paras 34ff.
  12. 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.
  13. Section 66(2) UrhG [old version]
  14. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) 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) s 66, para 2.
  15. T Dreier, "§ 66" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 16; Oberlandesgericht München 12 June 1967, case 6 AR 24/67, (1968) 51 UFITA 377, 379.
  16. 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) s 66, para 2.
  17. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.
  18. Geldscheinsammlung (in German). Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  19. 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)
  20. 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.“).
  21. 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), in German
  22. 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).
  23. Wilhelm Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 57 (2); similar Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (229).
  24. 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.
  25. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (10).
  26. 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).
  27. a b OLG München, 6 U 4132/87 (= NJW 1989, 404 – Abdruck von Kunstwerken in Werbeprospekten), decided on June 9, 1988.
  28. 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).
  29. LG München I 21 O 4956/07 (in German). Kanzlei Prof. Schweizer (24 October 2007). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  30. 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).
  31. Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (5, 8).
  32. 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).
  33. Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), s 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).
  34. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.
  35. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 13.
  36. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].
  37. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 18.
  38. 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.
  39. Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  40. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].
  41. 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.
  42. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 567; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17.
  43. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  44. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. 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).
  45. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. 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 any time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.
  46. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16; 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 (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.
  47. In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) 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.
  48. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. 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 s 59(1)").
  49. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2019) 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16 ("private property with access control").
  50. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 14 ("universal view"); 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).
  51. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].
  52. Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.
  53. 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 s 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 25; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.
  54. Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.
  55. 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 (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 568. 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.
  56. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.
  57. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 24; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.
  58. In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  59. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].
  60. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].
  61. 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.
  62. Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.
  63. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 31.
  64. Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.
  65. Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.
  66. 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 (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 29; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.
  67. 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 (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 12 (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).
  68. Section 63.
  69. W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) 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 s 63).
  70. See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 30; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.
  71. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12.
  72. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.
  73. H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd edn, Beck 2010) para 245.
  74. Schack, Haimo (in german) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, pp. 118
  75. 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