A German radio channel just broadcast this interview with a lawyer/art
historian regretting the judgment:
https://www1.wdr.de/kultur/kunst/bgh-entscheidung-gemaelde-fotografiestreit…
So it's interesting, it does seem to be making the media.
-- James.
On 20/12/2018 13:49, Sebastian Rittau via Commons-l wrote:
On 20.12.18 14:16, Fæ via Commons-l wrote:
Is there going to be an appeal?
Appeal won't be possible. This already was a ruling by Germany's highest
court. Going by the linked summary there are two cases to distinguish:
* Photographs by the museum are under "Lichtbildschutz" (50 years post
publication, not full 70pma), because the photographer has multiple
options concerning several parameters. (This verdict seems wrong,
because there aren't the mentioned parameters are fixed in repro
photography. Again the BGH shows its incompetency regarding
photography. But it is as it is.)
* Photographs by a visitor are a contract violation. The photographer
is liable to restitution. In this case by not uploading the images
any further. There is nothing about redistribution by third parties,
though.
- Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com