--- Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> schrieb:
On 8/8/06, Patrick-Emil Zörner
<paddyez(a)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