• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

No products in the cart.

  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Kurzberatung
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

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
4.1. Author: Marian Härtel

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.

Marian Härtel
Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: Case lawComputerCourt of AppealCreation heightDevelopmentFederal courtIT LawLawsModelReformSoftwareUrheberrecht

Weitere spannende Blogposts

LG Düsseldorf and SEPA

Fees on SEPA transfers for old contracts inadmissible
26. June 2024

In a recent ruling, the Düsseldorf Regional Court decided that even the impression that a company rejects foreign SEPA accounts...

Read moreDetails

BGH on time limits and costs and closing letters for preliminary injunctions.

BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive
26. May 2023

Introduction The landscape of German law is constantly in flux, characterized by ongoing adjustments and clarifications. A central role in...

Read moreDetails

FDP wants to change TMG in line with cookie ruling

ECJ: Cookies require explicit consent of users
23. October 2019

The FDP parliamentary group has tabled an entry to amend the Telemedia Act in response to the ECJ's cookie ruling:...

Read moreDetails

Burden of proof in misleading online advertising

Separate prosecution of UWG claims not necessarily abused
11. June 2019

Two law firms have argued in a case of misleading online advertising that has just been decided by the Federal...

Read moreDetails

Smart Contracts: Neither Smart nor Contracts ;-)

Smart Contracts: Neither Smart nor Contracts ;-)
1. November 2023

The quote "Smart contracts are neither smart nor contracts" comes from a legal perspective and is thought-provoking, especially for the...

Read moreDetails

Separate prosecution of UWG claims not necessarily abused

Separate prosecution of UWG claims not necessarily abused
25. April 2019

I was just writing another post on costs in court proceedings when I learned of another BGH ruling on questions...

Read moreDetails

Why text AI is not 100% reliable when it comes to contract drafting!

Why text AI is not 100% reliable when it comes to contract drafting!
2. February 2023

Can a machine be fully trusted with legally relevant issues? Since the "boom" of ChatGPT, this question is probably not...

Read moreDetails

Cloudflare liable for copyright infringement

ECJ: Advocate General assesses sampling as copyright infringement
7. November 2022

In a decision from October last year, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne obliged the provider Cloudflare, which many website...

Read moreDetails

Expression or statement of fact? The Dangers of Content Producers

Expression or statement of fact? The Dangers of Content Producers
2. August 2019

The problem Freedom of the press is a great asset in the Federal Republic of Germany and we can all...

Read moreDetails
Software licensing and compliance

Software licensing and compliance

16. October 2024

Software licensing and compliance covers various aspects of the lawful use and management of software licenses in companies. This area...

Read moreDetails
Altersverifikationssysteme (AVS)

Altersverifikationssysteme (AVS)

15. October 2024
Laufzeitklausel

Laufzeitklausel

15. October 2024
vesting vestingklausel

Vesting / vesting clause

26. June 2023
Restoration to the previous status

Restoration to the previous status

30. June 2023

Podcast Folgen

86fe194b0c4a43e7aef2a4773b88c2c4

On the dark side? A lawyer in the field of tension of innovative start-ups

26. September 2024

In this personal and engaging episode, the experienced IT and media lawyer delves deep into the gray area of his...

092def0649c76ad70f0883df970929cb

Influencers and gaming: legal challenges in the digital entertainment world

26. September 2024

In this captivating episode, lawyer Marian Härtel takes listeners on an exciting journey through the dynamic world of influencers and...

Legal challenges in the gaming universe: A guide for developers, esports professionals and gamers

What will 2025 bring for start-ups in legal terms? Opportunities? Risks?

24. January 2025

In this exciting episode of the itmedialaw podcast, we take a deep dive into the legal developments that will shape...

legal challenges when implementing confidential computing data protection and encryption in the cloud

Smart contracts and blockchain

15. January 2025

In this captivating podcast episode, I take a deep dive into the world of blockchain technology and smart contracts. The...

  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Contact
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
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
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung