Judgement of LG Hamburg (Regional Court Hamburg) of 04/12/2009, file number: 324 O 338/09

The bare publishing of a paparazzi photo does not mean that the photographed public figure “collects promotionally”. In this case a known German photographer considered that he could require royalty payments from the defendant, since the publication of the photo shows him by reading a known Sunday paper. Nevertheless, the Regional Court Hamburg did not share that opinion. In case of pure journalistic use of the picture, the photographed cannot claim for remuneration. 

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 29/09/2009, file number: 27 O 736/09

Without concrete and actual reason, the reporting about the state of health of a celebrity is inadmissible, since this concerns the main area of privacy. A known entertainer and comedy actress was seriously ill; this was compared in the media with the situation of host who was also ill. However, the illness of any third person who has no relation with the first mentioned person shows no “actual reason”, therefore, the reporting injures the general Personality Right.

Judgement of OLG Frankfurt/Main (Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main) of 11/12/2009, file number: 11 U 72/07

Those who deal reselling books without taking into account the fixed retail prices can be warned since that is an offence against the Fixed Retail Price Law. The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main has limited the costs to a lump sum of 175 euro net.

Judgement of LG Hamburg (Regional Court Hamburg) of 31/07/2009, file number: 310 O 338/08

A "Spongebob" – voice actor thought he would voice in the series a major role, whereupon he asked the radio play production company for profit sharing. Since he couldn’t anymore know the extension of his cooperation in the series, he required the suitable information from the productions company. The judges of the Regional Court Hamburg rejected his demand since the information claim should exist only if the plaintiff can prove that he cannot get that information by himself.

Judgement of HansOLG (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) of 24/11/2009, file number: 7 U 76/09

The Higher Regional Court Hamburg has decided about a radio station which has spread false statements within the scope of an interview. Indeed, it was evident that the false statements came from a third party and that the radio station did not maintain them. However, the radio station is liable for them since it does not dissociate itself enough from the false statements.

Press release No. 227/2009 of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) about the decision of 10/11/2009, file number: VI ZR 217/08

The Federal Supreme Court allows  the  Europeam Court  of Justice to clear the question of the international court competence about forbereance regarding naming by the suppliers who are settled in another member state.

Decision of the BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court) of 07/10/2009, file number: 1 BvR 3479/08

Music enterprisers and sound recording industries had issued in a constitutional complaint that private music CD copies infringe against § 53 paragraph 1 UhrG (Copyright Law). The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the complaint on the grounds that the complaint was not issued in due time. Moreover, the decision confirmed that single copies are allowed for the private use, as long as they have no purpose of gain.

Judgement of LG Köln (Regional Court Cologne) of 17/06/2009, file number: 28 O 662/08

If a picture is shown in a people search machine not only as a pure hyperlink as but as “embedded content” on the Internet site, than this picture is a part of the mentioned side. Hence, the site owner must be entitled to the representation of that picture. Otherwise he spreads it illegally and exposes himself to be warned. The fact that the picture is not stored on the server of that site is unimportant.

Decision of the BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court) of 24/09/2009, file numbers: 1 BvR 1231/04, 1 BvR 710/05, 1 BvR 1184/08

According to § 184 d StGB (Penal Code), suppliers of pornographic contents are responsible for ensuring through technical precautions that the pornographic content is not accessible for people under 18s. The age verification obligation is not inapplicable to protect minors against the negative influence of pornographic contents since these are freely available on the internet.  A law is already adequate to reach the aimed purpose when the reaching purpose is promoted.

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 31/01/2008, file number: 27 O 1000/07

Basically every person can determine whether portraits from themselves can be used and published. This also concerns film shoots. Television broadcasting stations, which film people, must have the explicit approval from those people to emit the images. Even if these people tolerate the recording, it is not enough to emit the images if they do not give an explicit approval. In case that these images should be broadcasted anyway, the identity of the filmed people should be unrecognizable.

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 20/08/2009, file number: 27 O 529/09

The Berlin district court confirms an injunction against a newspaper publisher due to an article in which the private sphere of a well-known singer was injured. The article informed about supposed rumours about an affair of the singer with a colleague. Spreading such suppositions about the love-life is inadmissible since the publication of such speculations lacked on information and therefore the interference in the private sphere of the singer was not justified.

Judgement of LG Köln (Regional Court Cologne) of 30/07/2008, file number: 28 O 148/08

A monetary indemnity of 15,000 € was assigned to the wife of a known television presenter due to the unjustified publication of the wedding ceremony on a magazine. The judges of the regional court Cologne explained the monetary indemnity with the fact that the plaintiff’s personality rights were considerably injured by the publication of the pictures. Pictures of the wedding, which she consciously planned excluding the public.

Press release No. 44/09 of AG München (Local Court Munich) about the judgement of 19/08/2009, file number: 161 C 3130/09

Basically the right to one’s own picture protects everybody against unauthorized spreading of own images, including aerial photos of own property. Thus, the right to one’s own picture is not infringed if the images cannot be assigned to a certain address and no single person can be recognized.

Press release No. 201/2009 of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) about the judgement of 01/10/2009, file number: I ZR 134/09

Amusing and ironic comparisons in a commercial are allowed within certain limits. If the advertising does not disrate the competitor, nor reveals the absurdity creating a merely amusing exaggeration, the advertising does not act in an anticompetitive manner.

Judgement of OLG Hamburg (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) of 19/08/2009, file number: 5 U12/08

Tobacco groups are not allowed to advertise for their cigarettes in newspapers as image advertising. Even the attempt to describe the tobacco products as “bio-tobacco”, “untreated” or “natural” has been seen by the judges of the higher regional court Hamburg as an infringement against the tobacco law. The judges have clearly expressed that health and youth protection must have absolutely priority.

Judgement of LG Frankfurt/Main (Regional Court Frankfurt/Main) of 25/06/2009, file number: 2-03 O 179/09

If merely a black bar across the eyes on the photograph is used to censor it, somebody can recognize the person who is tried to be unrecognizable. In this case, the affected person can also require omission of the graphic representation if he has just agreed to publish the photo on a certain domain.

Judgement of LG Köln (Regional Court Cologne) of 13/05/2009, file number: 28 O 889/08

Those who make available an Internet access in own household and therefore make possible the participation in music file sharing networks, have the obligation to check and perform if needed. According to the court, to prohibit the children expressly and specifically to download music, it is not enough. As effective action, they would have had to set up the computer with limited rights as well as a Firewall, which prevent the download of data from the computer.

Decision of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 30/06/2009, file number: VI ZR 339/08

A monetary indemnity due to insistent serious injury of the right in own picture depends on the particular cases evaluation; children must be protected more comprehensive than adults. Cease and desist letter and measures of compliance would have a satisfaction function.

Judgement of EuG (Court of First Instance) of 30/06/2009, file number: T-435 / 05

The issue is whether the signs in question, which correspond to the title of a film, were used as trade marks prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, which has not been shown by the applicant. If the signs are use as a reference which is descriptive of the goods and some of the goods are also provided with other origin specification, this indicates the commercial origin of the same serie. If the sign, which is the action figure of characters from the film, is only used as a connection of a product with the film, this is only describing.

Judgement of LG Düsseldorf (Regional Court Dusseldorf) of 01/04/2009, file number: 12 O 277/08

The rights of a photography are not lost, according to § 72 paragraph 1 UhrG (Copyright Act), just because only a detail from the picture has been unjustified used. Protective property of the norm is also every part of the picture; in particular if it concerns the distinctive detail of the photograph. In addition, according to § 13 UhrG (Copyright Act), a surcharge of 100% of the basis reimbursement is entitled to the photographer if his name was not mentioned as originator.