--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com schrieb:
On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner paddyez@yahoo.de wrote:
The "keine Schöpfungshöhe" [[Threshold of originality]] is a term that does not exist as such in the english language. But the
reason
the german wikipedia does not care is because the german "Urheberrecht" (copyright) is not infringed. We do not even infringe any law including the "Markenrecht" (trademarks).
Is there solid legal precedent that under German law, trademarked logos cannot be copyrighted, under any circumstances?
No.
In other words, has more analysis gone into this than a few de:
users
reading the law for themselves and working out what they think it means?
No.
I do not care about that [a lawsuit] at all. It is the responsibility of the uploader. Wikimedia projects do not even
need
logo images IMHO. And even if the uploader is sued I do not know
on
what grounds. If someone prints a logo on a t-shirt and sells the stuff he infringes the "Markenrecht". That is of no concern of the uploader whatsoever.
The uploader may be the first responsible person, but not the only person who could be sued, I'm sure. If de: image policy is changed to allow such use, and it is later found to be incorrect to consider logos as uncopyrightable, it's possible that those involved in that enabling decision - or the foundation itself, or the German equivalent, could be sued. Even if such a lawsuit is unsuccessful, it would require time and money we'd rather not spend.
They are not uncopyrightable if the "Schöpfungshöhe" is big enough. Some logos consist of a simple letter like the german telecom but in that case they need to use the german "Geschmacksmuster"-law (registered design) but we do not care about that in WM-projects AFAIK. Furthermore I think that you would need at least a whole 256 character set before you could use "Geschmacksmuster"-law. The deutsche Telekom infact tried to protect the letter and the used color but failed in a lawsuit (If you whant to know which laws I would have to do some research).
I agree on the latter that if there is a lawsuit we would see how usless these logos are in WM-projects. For companies it is the best advertising ever having an article with logo in WP. Therefore suppose the risk is so low, that it is more dangerous to cross the street a billion times. But as a german saying translates "people have seen horses throw up" (a very unlikely but possible event).
Nevertheless we do not disuss the german situation but the commons situation which must consider international law.
From commons yes. But that is because commons needs to think about international law. And in other countries such a thing as "keine Schöpfungshöhe" does not exist. So please do not confuse issues like WP de and WM commons.
WP de needs to respect international law as well, for that matter, unless all the servers are now located in Germany and have severed all ties to the Florida-based Foundation, which I don't believe has happened.
I am not 100% sure if it is like you say. Being a german citizen writing german articles does not make me liable in a country like e.g. Australia no matter if the foundation server is in St. Petersburg or in Canberra. At least not concerning copyright matters. Otherwise it would be OK for germans to use "fair use"-images in german articles which we do not even though the server is in America.
I would especially argue caution for trademarks of non-German entities, but I think that caution is required all round.
Very wise ;-)
greetings
Paddy
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de