• Home
  • Imprint
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • Agile and lean law firm
  • Ideal partner
  • Contact
  • Videos
ITMediaLaw - Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Ideal partner
      • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Video series – about me
      • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
      • Principles as a lawyer
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Nerd und Rechtsanwalt
      • Ideal partner
      • How can I help clients?
    • Über die Kanzlei
      • How clients benefit from my network of colleagues, partners and service providers
      • Quick and flexible access
      • Agile and lean law firm
      • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
      • Price overview
    • How can I help clients?
    • Sonstige Informationen
      • Einwilligungen widerrufen
      • Privatsphäre-Einstellungen ändern
      • Historie der Privatsphäre-Einstellungen
      • Privacy policy
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Leistungen
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Support with the foundation
      • Games law consulting
      • Advice in e-commerce
      • Support and advice of agencies
      • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
      • Legal compliance and expert opinions
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Arbeitsschwerpunkte
      • Games and esports law
        • Esports. What is it?
      • Corporate law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Consulting for influencers and streamers
        • Influencer & Streamer
      • Contract review and preparation
      • DLT and Blockchain consulting
        • Blockchain Overview
      • Investment advice
      • AI and SaaS
  • Artikel/News
    • Langartikel / Guides
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Law on the Internet
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Online retail
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Labour law
    • Tax
    • Kanzlei News
    • Other
  • Videos/Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Kurz-Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Contact
Kurzberatung
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Ideal partner
      • About lawyer Marian Härtel
      • Video series – about me
      • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
      • Principles as a lawyer
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Nerd und Rechtsanwalt
      • Ideal partner
      • How can I help clients?
    • Über die Kanzlei
      • How clients benefit from my network of colleagues, partners and service providers
      • Quick and flexible access
      • Agile and lean law firm
      • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
      • Price overview
    • How can I help clients?
    • Sonstige Informationen
      • Einwilligungen widerrufen
      • Privatsphäre-Einstellungen ändern
      • Historie der Privatsphäre-Einstellungen
      • Privacy policy
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Leistungen
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Support with the foundation
      • Games law consulting
      • Advice in e-commerce
      • Support and advice of agencies
      • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
      • Legal compliance and expert opinions
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Arbeitsschwerpunkte
      • Games and esports law
        • Esports. What is it?
      • Corporate law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Consulting for influencers and streamers
        • Influencer & Streamer
      • Contract review and preparation
      • DLT and Blockchain consulting
        • Blockchain Overview
      • Investment advice
      • AI and SaaS
  • Artikel/News
    • Langartikel / Guides
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Law on the Internet
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Online retail
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Labour law
    • Tax
    • Kanzlei News
    • Other
  • Videos/Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Podcast
      • ITMediaLaw Kurz-Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Contact
ITMediaLaw - Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel
Home Copyright

Kammergericht: No ancillary copyright for computer graphics

7. November 2022
in Copyright
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0 0
A A
0
Key Facts
  • The Court of Appeal in Berlin ruled that virtual objects are not a product within the meaning of Section 72 UrhG.
  • The decision is based on the production process, not on the visual effect of the computer graphics.
  • Protection under copyright law requires personal intellectual creation and level of design, which has not been proven here.
  • Computer-generated images cannot be considered works of fine art under § Section 2 (1) UrhG be classified.
  • The court also did not recognize any photographs within the meaning of the Copyright Act in the disputed graphics.
  • The judicial development of the law must respect the basic legislative decision and act within the given framework.
  • The legislator must decide whether computer graphics should be included in the scope of protection of Section 72 UrhG.

An interesting ruling from my field of IT law comes from the Kammergericht in Berlin. It deals with the question whether a virtual object constitutes a product in the sense of § 72 UrhG or not.

Content Hide
1. The case
2. The decision of the Kammergericht
3. Also no photos
4. Comments on the separation of powers

This is denied by the Kammergericht (the higher regional court in Berlin). It ruled that an image of a virtual object created on a computer by means of electronic commands does not constitute a product within the meaning of Section 72 UrhG that is produced in a manner similar to a photograph.

This would also apply if the graphic appeared to be a photograph, since the result of the creative process was not the decisive factor. Rather, the only decisive factor was the production method and, in this respect, the comparability of the technical processes.

The case

The parties disputed the reproduction of product images. In addition to refraining from making the images accessible, the plaintiff asserted a claim for information about the extent of the use of specific product photos and about the origin of a product photo.

The Regional Court had still sentenced the defendant as requested. The defendant defended itself against this, as it was of the opinion that the images in dispute were not protected by copyright pursuant to Section 2 (2) of the German Copyright Act. 1 No. 5 UrhG would enjoy. On the one hand, they would not be classic photographs, and on the other hand, there would be clear differences both in the creative process and in the creative result. The images also lacked the necessary quality pursuant to Section 2 (2) of the German Copyright Act. 1 UrhG (German Copyright Act).

The decision of the Kammergericht

The Court of Appeal agreed with this interpretation and allowed the appeal. Computer-generated images would not qualify as works of fine art under § 2 para. 1 No. 4 UrhG (German Copyright Act). The concept of fine art includes all personal creations that are produced with the means of representation of art through form-giving activity. In principle, computer animations or graphics can also enjoy this protection, but only if they are not based solely on the activity of the computer. In this context, a work of visual art including the applied arts shall be deemed to be a personal intellectual creation pursuant to Section 2 (2). 2 UrhG is required. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, a personal intellectual creation is a creation of individual character whose aesthetic content has reached such a degree that, in the opinion of circles receptive to art and reasonably familiar with art appreciation, it can be said to be an “artistic” achievement.

In this respect, no other standard of review results from the Cofemel decision of the ECJ of last year, in which the ECJ continues its established case law. In this decision, the ECJ addresses the issue of copyright protection of models(see my post) that have a special aesthetic effect beyond their intended use. Accordingly, copyright protection requires that the models be original works. In doing so, it referred to its previous case law, according to which any original object that is an expression of its author’s own intellectual creation can be classified as a work within the meaning of the Copyright Directive.

According to the court, it is not evident that this decision would have led to a lowering of the requirements for copyright protection.

According to the Senate, however, the question of whether the aesthetic effect of an object is relevant for classification as a work was not decisive in the present case, since the graphics already lack the originality required for classification as a personal creation.

In a departure from the earlier case law of the Federal Court of Justice, products of applied art are no longer subject to more stringent requirements than works of non-purpose art. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when assessing whether the design level still required has been reached that the aesthetic effect of the design can at any rate only justify copyright protection insofar as it is not owed to the purpose of use but is based on an artistic achievement.

An author’s own intellectual creation presupposes that there is scope for design and that the author uses it to express his creative spirit in an original way. The scope for artistic design is regularly limited in the case of objects of daily use which must have design features dictated by the purpose of use.

The plaintiff was not able to demonstrate the required level of design, that it turned out that the “pictures were created by means of software on the screen”. The fact that there may have been some leeway in the design of the colors, the contrasts and the light reflections was not sufficient for the Kammergericht. Most of the design elements were rather basic elements of the perspective representation of three-dimensional bodies on two-dimensional surfaces.

Also no photos

The court also did not recognize photographic images within the meaning of the Copyright Act

The images in dispute are not photographs. This includes all images that are created when radiation-sensitive layers undergo a chemical or physical change due to radiation. […] In any case, this is already not the case with graphics created on the computer.

Finally, the Board did not recognize any products made similarly to a photograph.

In this assessment, the starting point for the interpretation of Section 72 UrhG is the wording of the provision, according to which the decisive factor is the creative process and not the result of the creative process. Accordingly, in answering the question of what is meant by “products similar to photographic images”, the result of the production process alone cannot ultimately be decisive. Otherwise, any image that visually looks like a photograph, such as photorealistic works, would already be classified as a product similar to a photograph. Such an interpretation would, however, draw the line at creations that are more similar to drawings in terms of their mode of creation and thus fall within the scope of application of Section 2 (2) of the German Civil Code. 1 No. 4 or No. 7 UrhG are blurred.

Comments on the separation of powers

Interesting in the judgment is also the following execution of the Kammergericht:

The fact that, in the context of the reform of copyright law in 1962, there was already an awareness that copyright law is strongly influenced by technical developments, that there are always new questions of applicability, and that it therefore lags behind the technical possibilities, cannot lead to a different assessment in the present case. It is true that, in view of the accelerated change in social conditions, it is fundamentally one of the tasks of jurisprudence to adapt the laws to changed conditions. However, this must always be done with due regard for the principles of separation of powers and the binding force of the law. Against this background, the judicial development of the law must respect the basic decision of the legislator and interpret it within this given framework. It is unacceptable for the current state of the law to move further and further away from the wording of the laws.

The Board therefore concludes that:

In this respect, it should first be borne in mind that computer graphics are not completely unprotected under copyright law. Rather, they enjoy copyright protection under the conditions of § 2 UrhG. However, the question of whether they should also be granted a privilege within the meaning of Section 72 UrhG must be answered in the negative, taking into account the basic legislative decision taken to date. In any case, no other interpretation can be inferred from the purpose of copyright law. In a deliberate decision, the legislator had at that time limited the privilege of Section 72 UrhG solely to photographs and similarly produced products. The question of whether the scope of this standard should be opened to computer graphics when they are created in a kind of virtual photo studio is a fundamental value decision that the legislature must make. By including computer graphics in the scope of protection, the existing boundary between the purely pictorial representation of existing motifs and the pictorial representation of non-existing motifs going beyond this would be abolished. Furthermore, this would also readjust the boundary between copyright and ancillary copyright.

And further, the Kammergericht stated that the demand for the inclusion of such graphics in the scope of protection of § 72 UrhG was understandable in view of the development of computer technology, which has led to completely new design and editing possibilities, and that clear contradictions in value would already arise today.

However, this break was already inherent in the law, so that it would also be the task of the legislator to adapt the existing regulations in a sensible way, taking into account technical developments.

Tags: Case lawComputerCourt of AppealCreation heightDevelopmentFederal courtIT LawLawsModelReformSoftwareUrheberrecht

Beliebte Beträge

Erotic content on OnlyFans: Copyright and personality rights protection for creators

Erotic content on OnlyFans: Copyright and personality rights protection for creators
20. May 2025

OnlyFans has established itself as a platform on which content creators - often in the erotic sector - offer their...

Read moreDetails

Memes, remixes and reaction videos legal? – Copyright 2025: Parody and pastiche exception

Memes, remixes and reaction videos legal? – Copyright 2025: Parody and pastiche exception
9. May 2025

Memes, remix videos and reaction videos have become an integral part of online culture - but are such memes legal...

Read moreDetails

Legally compliant contract drafting for software development on no-code platforms

Legally compliant contract drafting for software development on no-code platforms
26. April 2025

No-code and low-code platforms enable start-ups and agencies to develop software and digital products quickly and without in-depth programming knowledge....

Read moreDetails

Open source in software development: legal principles and practice

Open source in software development: legal principles and practice
17. April 2025

Open source software has become an integral part of modern software development - whether in the development of computer games(game...

Read moreDetails

Contracts with co-development studios: IP splitting, rights allocation and risk allocation

Contracts with co-development studios: IP splitting, rights allocation and risk allocation
23. April 2025

International collaboration in software and game development offers great opportunities - from shared expertise to faster product creation. However, co-development...

Read moreDetails

Unjustified IP warning: What to do with strikes on social media?

copyright
23. January 2025

Content creators on platforms such as Instagram, YouTube or Twitch are increasingly confronted with legal challenges that go far beyond...

Read moreDetails

Property rights to algorithms: Typical questions and legal answers

ECJ: Advocate General assesses sampling as copyright infringement
15. January 2025

Time and again, clients ask the question: "Who actually owns the rights to an algorithm?" This question is not only...

Read moreDetails

Influencer marketing contracts & content creator law

cc4cbb3206a631e8b56c3bdf22a57e6c
8. December 2024

When I founded JustGamers 25 years ago, "influencers" were still the gaming magazines that reported on new computer games in...

Read moreDetails

License agreements for software start-ups

License agreements for software start-ups: How to optimally protect your intellectual property
13. October 2024

For software start-ups, intellectual property is often the most valuable asset. The correct drafting of license agreements is therefore crucial...

Read moreDetails
  • Home
  • Imprint
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • Agile and lean law firm
  • Ideal partner
  • Contact
  • Videos
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Contact
  • Leistungen
    • Support with the foundation
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Games law consulting
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
    • Investment advice
    • Booking as speaker
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Contract review and preparation
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Focus on start-ups
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus on start-ups
    • How can I help clients?
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Testimonials
    • Imprint
  • Videos
    • Video series – about me
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos on services
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Shorts
    • Third-party videos
    • Podcast format
    • Other videos
  • Knowledge base
  • Podcast
  • Blogposts
    • Lange Artikel / Ausführungen
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Labour law
    • EU law
    • Corporate
    • Competition law
    • Copyright
    • Tax
    • Internally
    • Other
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung