Exhibition right

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In copyright law, an exhibition right is an exclusive right of artists, which is provided in a few legal systems, to be able to determine the public display of their works . The exhibition right is recognized in German and Austrian copyright law, but with the practically significant restriction that the author can only refer to it as long as the work in question is still unpublished.

If there is a statutory right to remuneration for the exhibition right - which is currently not the case in Germany or Austria, but for example in Canada - this remuneration is also referred to as exhibition remuneration . Despite the conceptual ambiguity, the exhibition right has nothing to do with the existing copyright protection of the exhibition itself (due to the creative composition of the exhibits).

The Swiss Copyright Act (URG) uses the term exhibition right differently. There one describes the right of an author - unknown in Germany and Austria - to be able to request the owner of a copy of the work to hand it over for exhibition purposes under certain conditions ( Art. 14 para. 2 CopA).

Germany

standard

The right of exhibition is defined in § 18 of the Copyright Act (UrhG) as

"The right to publicly display the original or copies of an unpublished work of the visual arts or an unpublished photographic work."

It belongs to the bundle of exploitation rights to which the author is exclusively entitled ( § 15 UrhG). Under the exploitation rights, the exhibition falls into the category of so-called physical exploitation of works ( Section 15  (1) UrhG).

content

With the exhibition right, the author of a work is given the right to determine when and under what conditions the original or copies of the work (work copies) may be publicly displayed. However, there are two key restrictions:

(1.)  Only unpublished works: On the one hand, the right to exhibit exists only as long as the work is “unpublished”; it therefore expires with its first publication. It is irrelevant in which form the first publication takes place (for example: public exhibition, public reproduction in the context of a public slide lecture, duplication and distribution in a freely available illustrated book, public access on the Internet, etc.). For example, if you think of a previously unpublished painting, the right to exhibit it expires immediately as soon as a photo of it is posted on the freely accessible Internet. The same thing happens to art photography as soon as the photographer presents it for the first time at a publicly accessible vernissage - if the artist can sell it on this occasion, the buying collector can therefore include it in his exhibition regardless of an exhibition right. From these examples it becomes clear that - contrary to what a common language understanding of the term "exhibition right" might suggest - exhibition law according to the German understanding is not about giving the author the power to be able to fully determine future presentations of his work of art.

(2.)  Only works of the visual arts and photographic works: On the other hand, according to the wording of the law, the scope of application is limited to works of the visual arts and photographic works ( Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 5). Since under German copyright law simple photographs (i.e. non-creative photographs) are protected in the same way as photographic works ( Section 72 Paragraph 1 UrhG), the exhibition right extends to these by virtue of reference. It is disputed whether the “works of the fine arts” also include “works of architecture and applied art and drafts of such works” (see Section 2 (1) No. 4 UrhG).

A work becomes “on display” when it is made accessible to the public in physical form - that is, in the form of a “tangible” work piece - for immediate perception. Immediate perception is usually visual, i.e. by looking at it, but can in principle also be brought about by touch. If the work is presented on the radio or on the Internet, this physicality is missing, so that the author cannot defend himself from the exhibition rights.

With the aid of exhibition rights, work presentations can only be controlled if their audience actually represents a public (" publicly displayed") - whoever purchases an unpublished oil painting should under no circumstances have to ask the artist for permission before he can take the picture shows his family. What is disputed in detail is which concept of publicity is to be used here; this question has not yet been clarified by the highest court. Most commentators orientate themselves on the concept of publicity of § 15 Abs. 3 UrhG, which means that the access must be made to a majority of people who are not personally connected by (personal) relationships with each other or with the exploiter. This has not remained without reservations, especially since the local concept of the public sphere has tended to be narrowed down by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) and as a result the Federal Court of Justice has recently started making public communication - in accordance with the directive - a "public" only in the case of a " an indefinite number of potential addressees ”and“ quite a large number of people ”. In the context of exhibition rights, however, it should in any case be sufficient that the persons can perceive the work one after the other (successive public). If, for example, only one person is admitted at a time into a chamber containing a work of art, this does not prevent the presentation of the work as an exhibition. What is decisive in any case is the offer of perception; Whether there is actually a public visiting the exhibition is irrelevant for the applicability of the provision.

The right to exhibit is subject to an additional restriction through Section 44 (2) UrhG. According to this, the owner of the original of a previously unpublished work of the visual arts or a previously unpublished photographic work may always exhibit this if the author has not expressly excluded this when selling the original. Of course, this only applies to the sale, not to the mere rental or rental. Another prerequisite is that the "original" is sold (trivially, a unique specimen , but also, for example, a signed or stamped print of a photograph). If the author expressly declares in the sale that he wishes to reserve the right to exhibit, this reservation has real effect , so that the claim also applies to any subsequent purchasers who buy the original from the first purchaser.

Consequences of injury

The unlawful violation of the right to exhibit gives the injured party the right to have the impairment removed or, if there is a risk of repetition, to cease and desist ( Section 97 (1) sentence 1 UrhG). The copyright law also grants a preventive right to cease and desist ( Section 97 (1) sentence 2 UrhG): If, for example, the author becomes aware of the work owner's plans to exhibit the previously unpublished painting soon, he can already inform the owner of the impending risk of first inspection take preventive action against omission.

If the exhibition rights are violated intentionally or negligently, the infringer is also entitled to compensation ( Section 97 (2) UrhG).

In contrast to the other exploitation rights named in the German Copyright Act ( §§ 15 ff. UrhG), the exhibition right is not protected by criminal law , as can be seen from § 106 Paragraph 1 UrhG .

Legal practice

The right to exhibit is not exercised collectively by VG Bild-Kunst , which is responsible for works of the visual arts and photographic works . This is systematically obvious. Because the right of publication ( § 12 UrhG) is not granted to the collecting societies by a management agreement; an anticipated exercise of this right (before the completion of the specific work) should not even be possible in general for the protection of moral personality. After exercising the right to publish, the right to issue can no longer be exercised. As a result, the collecting society would in any case have no meaningful opportunity to exercise the right to exhibit.

In view of the outlined - narrow - scope of application, exhibition rights are of little importance in practice.

History and justification

The right to exhibit was introduced into the Federal German Copyright Act when the UrhG came into force on January 1, 1966. Previously there was no correspondence, and even in the case law, no exhibition rights were recognized at the time of the Art Copyright Act (KUG) , which was in force before the Copyright Act . The regulating § 18 UrhG has remained unchanged since then. The official justification for the government draft of the Copyright Act expressly addresses proposals according to which the author should also have the right with regard to already published works; the government rejects them, because "if the author's consent to the exhibition of published works in shop windows or exhibition rooms always had to be obtained, the art trade would be significantly impeded, which would also not be in the interests of the authors". In addition, "the exhibition of works of the visual arts or photographic works is unlikely to generate any significant income, so that the authors would not gain a significant economic advantage from the extension of the exhibition rights."

In the German Democratic Republic - as in the Federal Republic - the KUG regulated the copyright situation until the end of 1965; there was no exhibition right at this time either. The copyright law of the GDR (DDR-UrhG), which came into force on the same day as the UrhG, then explicitly stated in the list of the author's rights of use to exclusively decide whether his work "if it has not yet been published, issued [...] "(§ 18 Abs. 1 lit. d DDR-UrhG). In contrast to the West German version, there was no restriction of the right to exhibit in the GDR to works of the fine arts and photographic works.

Discussion of legal policy

status quo

Some voices in the literature criticize the fact that the independent contribution to protection that the exhibition rights make to the author is too small; Wilhelm Nordemann even described the law in its current form as “nothing more than superfluous nonsense”. Because, according to Nordemann , the right refers exclusively to unpublished works - but the right of publication ( § 12 UrhG) lies with the author himself anyway, so § 18 UrhG only repeats "unnecessarily" "what has already been stated elsewhere in the law".

Some commentators also consider it problematic that purchasers of an original work are generally also given the right to exhibit ( Section 44 (2) UrhG); the possibility of expressly reserving the right to issue an exhibition in the event of a sale is little known in practice and is correspondingly uncommon. In addition, unknown artists in particular hold a weak position in the art trade and are therefore largely dependent on the ideas of their gallery owner when they are sold .

Exhibition remuneration

In order to upgrade the exhibition rights, parts of the literature demand the introduction of a statutory entitlement to remuneration for exhibitions in order to allow the author to share in the income from exhibitions of his works. For this, the concept of exhibition remuneration has prevailed, especially in the legal-political discussion; their characteristic is that they would arise as a legal remuneration claim without further contractual agreements.

Such a demand has also been made again and again at the federal political level. In 1997, in response to a major inquiry from the SPD parliamentary group, the federal government compiled a comprehensive catalog of concerns about exhibition fees: For public exhibitions, admission prices would have to be increased and / or the number of exhibitions reduced, and for private exhibitions, the fee could be negative affect the further implementation of such exhibitions, and in the case of commercial exhibitions, it should be borne in mind that sales exhibitions "offer a significant opportunity, especially for younger artists [...] to get into sales". In the case of a compulsory remuneration, this would generally be offset against subsequent sales proceeds; on the other hand, if the claim to remuneration were waived, at least in the case of lesser-known artists, it could be expected to be waived.

In the coalition agreement for the 15th electoral period (2002–2005), the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Grüne agreed "to seek exhibition remuneration for visual artists". The project was never implemented. In its final report, the Enquete Commission on Culture in Germany (2003–2007) also dealt with the proposal for an exhibition fee, but could not agree to speak out in favor of its introduction. In 2012, the parliamentary group Die Linke requested, among other things, that the Bundestag should resolve "to create the legal requirements for paying exhibition fees for visual artists". According to the proposal, this right should be enshrined in copyright law. The amount and criteria of an exhibition remuneration should be discussed in a committee with representatives of the associations and institutions concerned as well as selected artists and legal experts; the art trade should be exempted from the payment obligation. In its recommendation for a resolution, the committee responsible for culture and media spoke out against the motion with the votes of the CDU / CSU and FDP. While the proponents pointed out the precarious situation of the artists, the CDU / CSU and FDP emphasized that the exhibition business is already generating hardly any revenue, which is why a mandatory exhibition fee would ultimately be to the detriment of the artists. With the votes of the coalition factions, the application was finally rejected in the Bundestag. In 2017, as part of a comprehensive catalog of demands, the left-wing parliamentary group applied for the Bundestag to request the government to submit a draft law "in order to improve the legal requirements for the payment of an appropriate exhibition fee for visual artists, and in particular a) to grant this right in terms of copyright law anchoring it, b) declaring it indispensable, c) ensuring that the remuneration will only benefit the visual artists, d) designing it as assignable to a collecting society and e) specifically excluding the professional art trade with its galleries and sales exhibitions. " The Committee on Culture and the Media recommended that the application be rejected; the Bundestag followed the recommendation with the votes of the CDU / CSU and SPD.

The exhibition remuneration initiative, founded in summer 2016, advocates the introduction of exhibition remuneration. Members of the initiative are the Federal Association of Visual Artists , the German Association of Artists , GEDOK , the ver.di visual arts specialist group and the Bild-Kunst collecting society .

The exhibition fee is to be separated from the exhibition fee. The latter usually refers to a payment that an exhibitor makes to the owner of an original work of art - often: the artist himself - for making the copy available to him for exhibition purposes. The exhibition fee does not result from a copyright claim, but is a fee agreed between the owner and the exhibitor for a - on a rental basis - transfer of use. However, the use of the term is inconsistent.

Restriction to unpublished works

Often, in connection with proposals for a remuneration obligation, a lifting of the restriction of the exhibition right to unpublished works is requested. Any further presentation of a work in the context of an exhibition would also encroach on the exhibition rights. In order to implement an exhibition remuneration configured in this way, a collecting society obligation is sometimes suggested. Against such an “extended” exhibition right, it is argued that the buyer would be burdened excessively. Robert Kirchmaier , for example, points out that most of the exhibitions in museums and other exhibition venues are already subsidized events and that the exhibition activities of these houses also benefit artists who are offered a forum to increase their own awareness. Thomas Dreier believes that such remuneration would “ultimately only benefit primarily those artists who are not really in need because they are well known”; In addition, the profit "seems rather low compared to the transaction costs associated with the exhibition as a whole".

Austria

Norm and content

Austrian law provides for an exhibition right as part of the distribution right. According to Section 16 (2) of the Copyright Act (öUrhG), as long as a work is unpublished, the right of distribution also includes

"The exclusive right to make the work accessible to the public by posting, hanging, hanging, exhibiting or through a similar use of workpieces"

Since the Austrian distribution law is linked to a physical concept of a work, this is also a feature (and prerequisite) of the exhibition - just like according to the German parallel provision; "Internet exhibitions" or slide presentations are therefore not exhibitions in the sense of the regulation, but are regularly made available in accordance with Section 18a of the Austrian Copyright Act. At the same time, unlike under German law, the right to exhibit does not only extend to works of the visual arts, but also includes, for example, the placing of manuscripts in libraries. Since it is a variant of the distribution right, the exhibition right (again in contrast to the German UrhG) is also subject to exhaustion , which occurs according to § 16 para. 3 ÖUrhG as soon as the respective workpiece is placed on the European Community. Finally, the right to exhibit also expires with the first publication of the work, regardless of the way in which this is carried out and whether it is physical (e.g. by public offering for sale) or immaterial (e.g. by showing in a public presentation).

Compensation obligation

Between 1996 and 2000, § 16b öUrhG also provided for a statutory right to remuneration: According to this, the right of distribution “applies to the public exhibiting of work pieces with the proviso that the author has a right to appropriate remuneration if work pieces of the visual arts are exhibited for gainful purposes "(§ 16b Abs. 1 ÖUrhG [1996]), whereby these claims" could only be asserted by collecting societies "and were expressly not applicable to" works of applied art (of the applied arts) "(§ 16b Abs. 2 ÖUrhG [1996 ]). The works of the visual arts recorded, however, also included photographic works and, by reference, simple photographs ( Section 74 (7) Austrian Copyright Act). According to the explanatory remarks on the 1996 amendment to the Austrian Copyright Act, the regulation of such a statutory remuneration was owed to the consideration that the utilization through exhibition "is not typically compensated for when the workpiece is sold".

The combination of “for gainful purposes” and “paid” has led to a dispute in the literature in the area of ​​remuneration requirements. The Supreme Court (OGH) ruled in 1999 that “against payment” should be understood to mean that a fee has to be paid for visiting the exhibition. Meanwhile, “for commercial purposes” should not be equated with “commercial”, but rather refers to “whether the exhibition brings the exhibitor an economic advantage”; any additionally pursued non-material purpose is just as harmless for this as the fact that the advantages only come into play indirectly. The collection of an entrance fee thus justified the payment, but had only indicative significance for the likewise necessary profit-making purpose. This also corresponded to the considerations in the explanatory remarks on the government bill of the Austrian Copyright Act 1996, according to which the remuneration obligation “should not apply to museums that are only accessible for a fee, but are not operated for commercial purposes”.

In the course of the Austrian Copyright Act Amendment 2000, the exhibition remuneration was abolished again without further justification. The Supreme Court rejected an application directed against this to initiate a legal review procedure at the Constitutional Court , as it saw no reason to consider the abolition of the claim to be unconstitutional.

history

The regulation on the right to exhibit as part of the right of distribution in Section 16 (2) of the Austrian Copyright Act was incorporated into Austrian law when the Copyright Act came into force in 1936. It has remained unchanged since then. The explanatory remarks on the government bill also deal with a stronger exhibition right (not only relating to unpublished works). Although there are “noteworthy reasons for at least binding the paid public exhibition to the consent of the author”, it must be borne in mind “that such an exhibition right would have to be subject to extensive restrictions [...] and that the minor economic advantages that the educational Artists could grow out of this and would not outweigh the disadvantages and difficulties that would arise for the art trade ”. Therefore, "[e] in exhibition rights [...] should only be entitled to the author of unpublished works of the visual arts for the purpose of preventing publication of the work that he does not want".

criticism

Michel M. Walter criticizes the fact that the exhibition right in its current form due to the double restriction (exhaustion due to placing on the market and expiry due to publication) largely bypasses its own intended purpose - in any case, to reserve the right to publish his work to the author. Because as soon as an author sells a work piece (original or copy), the right to display is exhausted at the same time as the right of distribution, regardless of whether the work has already been published. Therefore, in practice, law only plays a “completely subordinate role”.

Other countries

Examples of countries that recognize an exhibition right:

  • China: The right of the author to publicly display originals or copies of works of fine art and photography is recognized (Art. 10 Para. 1 No. 8 of the Copyright Act). After the work has been sold, the owner of the original has the right to display his property.
  • France: The French copyright law does not clearly grant an exhibition right. Art. L. 122-2 of the Intellectual Property Act (CPI), however, grants the author the exclusive right to présentation publique of the work. This law, which has essentially been recognized since 1804, has for a long time been generally understood to refer essentially only to the performance of musical works. It was only after the copyright reform of 1985 that the literature became increasingly open to including the exhibiting of works under it. In the meantime, this interpretation is also shared by the highest court. There is no statutory entitlement to remuneration for the law, but is suggested in part in the literature. The scope of the law is questionable. Corresponding regulations cannot be found explicitly in the law; Michel Vivant / Jean-Michel Bruguière, however, urge the confiscation of reasonable boundaries in order not to surrender the law to absurdity, for example in that the display of a dress in a shop window would be subject to approval.
  • Japan: The author has the exclusive right to publicly display the original of his work of art or his unpublished photographic work (Article 25 of the Copyright Act). In contrast to German and Austrian law, the Japanese equivalent of the provision does not cover copies of works of art. The fact that photographic works are not based on the "original" is due to the fact that several copies are made from a negative, so that the determination of an "original" can be difficult.
  • Canada: Since 1988, Canadian law has granted the author the sole right to display a work of art in a public exhibition, provided the work is not a map, diagram, or map, unless the purpose of the exhibition is for sale or the work is rented and provided that the work was created after June 7, 1988 (Art. 3 (1) (g) Copyright Act). As can be seen from the wording “at a public exhibition”, the law - unlike in the German UrhG - does not cover any display of the work in public (such as in a hotel lobby), but only the display in the context of an event that primarily serves the purpose of presenting works. The introduction of the right to exhibit was preceded by efforts by the Canadian Artists' Representation (CARFAC), an association for visual artists, to negotiate tariffs for exhibitions with museums and other exhibitors on a voluntary basis. Initially, these efforts were only successful for a few organizations and only for the area of ​​traveling exhibitions. The practice expanded considerably later, a particular contribution to the fact that the Canada Council for the Arts linked the granting of funds to museums and other public institutions to submission to the CARFAC tariff. In order to consolidate this source of income, CARFAC and other interest groups actively promoted the government in a second stage for a statutory right to exhibit. On the one hand, they argued that exhibitions represented a use of the exhibited works and, at the same time, entrance fees were usually charged for exhibitions, so that it only seemed cheap to let the authors of the exhibits share in these proceeds. In addition, visual artists would be disadvantaged compared to performing artists, as the latter could control the presentation of their works through their performance rights. The museums countered this by saying that additional compensation for the artists would be at the expense of their acquisition budget; They also feared that the authors would influence their curatorial freedom.
  • USA: In the USA, an exhibition right is basically recognized as a subset of a much broader public display right . According to 17 USC § 106 (5) , the author has the exclusive right to show this publicly in the case of literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, of pantomimes and works of painting, graphics and sculpture, including the individual images of a feature film or other audiovisual works. Architectural works are not included. “Showing” includes, for example, showing in a film, broadcasting via a TV signal, making it accessible via the Internet and - traditionally at an exhibition - “direct” showing without further aids (section 101). One could also think of setting up a framed cartoon on a standard shelf or hanging a painting on a wall. In order to fall within the scope of protection of the law, “showing” must also be “publicly”. This is the case if it takes place “in a place accessible to the public” or in a place “in which a considerable number of people outside the circle of families and acquaintances are gathered” (Section 101). Nevertheless, there is in fact very little room for such an exhibition right. According to Section 109 (c), the owner of a lawfully produced copy of the work and any person authorized by the latter have, among other things, the right to show the copy of the work directly to the public without the permission of the copyright holder. A copyright infringement through exhibition is therefore usually only conceivable if the exhibited copy itself was illegally obtained or produced. In a case before the District Court for the Southern District of New York , for example, a dealer printed calendars with a photographer's pictures without his authorization to do so (violation of the right of reproduction). By then hanging up the calendar in his shop, he also violated the public display right - after all, the work copies were not legally produced.

In a sense, the opposite of these efforts can be observed in Irish legislation : the explicit exclusion of a right to exhibit. In 2004, the Irish government organized numerous events in honor of the writer James Joyce , whose Ulysses is set on June 16, 1904, and 2004 celebrated its 100th anniversary. Joyce's heirs, however, were opposed to the planned actions. Among other things, an advised exhibition of manuscripts and drafts by the Irish National Library was considered inadmissible. Corresponding legal doubts were based on the design of the right to make the work available to the public, which also refers in particular to "performing, showing or playing a copy of the work in public" (emphasis not given in the original). This caused the government to worry that the issue of a copy of the work could possibly be regarded as being made available to the public, and therefore be subject to an exclusive right of the heirs. In order to dispel the uncertainty, a clarification was hastily included in the Copyright Act, according to which there will be no violation of any right of exploitation if artistic or literary works or copies thereof are exhibited at locations or rooms to which members of the public have access . A comparable clarification now also includes the new Slovak copyright law .

Union and Convention Law

European Union

In the copyright legislation of the European Union , an exhibition right is at least not expressly provided. The question is sometimes raised in the literature as to whether the right of distribution provided for in Directive 2001/29 / EC (InfoSoc-RL) could possibly be interpreted in such a way that it also extends to the mere exhibition of a work. According to Art. 4 Para. 1 InfoSoc-RL, the member states provide “that the authors have the exclusive right of the originals of their works or copies thereof to distribute them to the public in any form, through sale or in any other way to permit or prohibit ”(emphasis not given in the original). In terms of the legal system, this would also correspond to the Austrian approach, where exhibition rights are treated as part of distribution law. If one followed such a view, the practical relevance of such a right would be limited by the exhaustion principle (Art. 4 para. 2 InfoSoc-RL), according to which the distribution right can no longer be exercised after it has been placed on the market for the first time.

In the meantime, in any case, the exhibition does not constitute a public reproduction (Art. 3 InfoSoc-RL). (According to Art. 3 Para. 1 InfoSoc-RL, the right of communication to the public is the right of authors, "the wired or wireless communication of their works, including making the works available to the public in such a way that they are members of the public from places and to Times of your choice are accessible, to allow or forbid ”[emphasis not in the original].) According to Recital 23 of the InfoSoc Directive, such a requirement namely that the public is not present at the place where the reproduction originates is (such as when looking at photographs on the Internet, but not when looking at pictures in a gallery); the Court of Justice also recognizes this requirement in its case law.

International agreements

The Berne Convention does not grant the right to exhibit. Article 17 of the Berne Convention expressly states that no provision of the Convention is intended to impair the right of every country of the association to allow, monitor or prohibit the exhibiting of works or products of any kind by means of legislative or internal administration measures the competent authority must exercise this right. In the past there have been quite a few attempts by committees of experts at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to have an exhibition right taken into account in a protocol to the Berne Convention or within the framework of another agreement; these ultimately all remained unsuccessful.

An exhibition right is also not expressly recognized in the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the World Copyright Convention (UCT).

Legal nature and systematics

Common way is divided the following from the copyright powers - under the copyright interests that are protected with them - in moral rights (moral rights) and exploitation rights (economic rights) . Even if the relationship between these two types of law differs from legal system to legal system, exploitation rights generally protect the economic interests of the author, while moral rights are intended to enable the author to control the handling and presentation of his work by others, insofar as this is his concerns intellectual, artistic or other non-economic interests.

The exhibition rights are generally assigned to the exploitation rights. In the Austrian copyright law this becomes clear through the subordination to the distribution right, in the German one through the classification of the norm in the corresponding subsection of the copyright law with the title "exploitation rights". However, this classification is sometimes difficult. If one limits the scope of protection of the right to unpublished works, as Germany and Austria do, then effectively a decision on the publication of the work lies in its exercise. The right to exhibit is thus closely approaching the right of publication, which gives the author the power to decide whether and how to publish his work and which is one of the most widespread moral rights worldwide. For example, for the German exhibition law Martin Vogel states that the restriction to unpublished works deprives the law of the character of an exploitation right and gives it "as a special form of work publication dogmatically the nature of a copyright prohibition right". For Eugen Ulmer , the right to exhibit is therefore actually “not fully developed into a real right of exploitation”.

literature

  • Philipp Beyer: Exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration (=  series of publications by the Archives for Copyright and Media Law . Volume 175 ). Nomos, Baden-Baden 2000, ISBN 3-7890-6548-X . [Germany]
  • Wladimir Duchemin: Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition . In: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur . tape 156 , 1993, pp. 14-106 (also in English and Spanish).
  • Willi Erdmann: Does the current exhibition law disadvantage the artist? In: Commercial legal protection and copyright . tape 113 , no. 12 , 2011, p. 1061-1065 .
  • Thomas Hoeren, Julia Werner: Are fame and honor not enough ?: Exhibition allowance for visual artists . In: Art and Law . tape 20 , no. 2 , 2018, p. 40-45 .
  • Robert Kirchmaier: Considerations for the introduction of an exhibition fee . In: Art Law and Copyright . tape 6 , no. 3 , 2004, p. 73-75 .
  • Isolde Klaunig, Helga Müller: The exploitation of works of fine art through public presentation through the exhibition . In: UFITA . No. 3 , 2013, p. 699-716 .
  • Isabel Kühl: International Museum Loans . Heymanns, Cologne 2004, ISBN 3-452-25800-9 . [On exhibition rights under German law with comparative law references: pp. 79–87]
  • Isabel Kühl: Finally an exhibition fee? In: Art Law and Copyright . tape 6 , no. 3 , 2004, p. 76-80 .
  • Victor Nabhan: Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada . In: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur . tape 156 , 1993, pp. 108–126 (also in English and Spanish). [Canada]
  • Wilhelm Nordemann: The right of exhibition (§18 UrhG) . In: Art Law and Copyright . tape 1 , no. 2 , 1999, p. 29-30 .
  • Gerhard Pfennig: Exhibition remuneration - equal rights for all creatives in the information society . In: Thomas Dreier, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Louisa Specht (Hrsg.): Lawyer for Copyright: Festschrift for Gernot Schulze on his 70th birthday . Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-71649-2 , pp. 173-184 .
  • R. Anthony Reese: The Public Display Right: The Copyright Act's Neglected Solution to the Controversy over RAM “Copies” . In: University of Illinois Law Review . No. 1 , 2001, p. 83–150 (also online: HeinOnline , not freely accessible). [UNITED STATES]
  • Haimo Schack: Exhibition rights and exhibition fees . In: Journal for Copyright and Media Law . tape 52 , no. 11 , 2008, p. 817-821 .
  • Cristina Vicent López: Nuevos aspectos del derecho de exposición: analisis comparativo . In: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur . tape 179 , 1999, pp. 78–141 (also in English and French).
  • Michel M. Walter: The exhibition rights and exhibition fees . In: Media and Law . tape 14 , no. 2 , 1996, p. 56-62 . [Austria]
  • Michel M. Walter: On the Austrian exhibition remuneration: At the same time a discussion of the decision of the Supreme Court of November 23, 1999 "Kunstforum" . In: Art Law and Copyright . tape 2 , no. 1 , 2000, pp. 45-51 . [Austria]

Remarks

  1. ↑ See Schack, exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration , 2008, op. Cit., P. 819. Näher Kühl, Der internationale Leihverkehr der Museen , 2004, op. Cit., P. 80 ff. And the compilation in Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op. cit., pp. 31-53.
  2. ↑ See Dustmann in Fromm / Nordemann, Copyright , 12th ed. 2018, § 18 Rn. 4a.
  3. ↑ In Germany, this does not follow from the right of access , cf. KG, judgment of May 22, 1981, 5 U 2295/81 = GRUR 1981, 742, 743 - death mask I ; Schulze in Müller / Oertli, Copyright Act , 2nd edition 2012, supplementary note to Art. 14. A comparable regulation to Swiss copyright law, for example, is contained in Turkish law, cf. Temel Nal, Turkey , in: Silke v. Lewinski (Ed.), Copyright Throughout the World , Status: 11/2017 (via Westlaw), § 39: 2.
  4. ↑ Probably inadvertently deviating or misleading BGH, judgment of February 23, 1995, I ZR 68/93 = BGHZ 129, 66, 74 - Mauer-Bilder , which violates the clear legal wording of the work reproduction in an immaterial form according to § 15 para. 2 UrhG seems to be assigned. Also Schack, Copyright and Copyright Contract Law , 8th edition 2017, Rn. 441 ("wrong [] classification"); Dustmann in Fromm / Nordemann, copyright , 12th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 1 ("misleading").
  5. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 18; LG Cologne, judgment of May 14, 2008, 28 O 582/07 = GRUR-RR 2009, 47, 48 - Italian caffè bars . In its judgment of February 23, 1995, I ZR 68/93 = BGHZ 129, 66, 74 - Wall pictures, the BGH speaks of an “exhaustion” of the exhibition rights.
  6. ↑ Dustmann in Fromm / Nordemann, Copyright , 12th edition. 2018, § 18 Rn. 6; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 21; See also LG Cologne, judgment of 14 May 2008, 28 O 582/07 = ZUM 2008, 707, 708 (irrelevant whether in physical or immaterial form). Therefore, the exhibition of a series of photos about Joseph Beuys 'art action “ Marcel Duchamp's silence is overrated ” did not violate Beuys ' exhibition right either, because the exhibition had already been broadcast on television and thus published, cf. Thomas Koch, Das Schweigen von Marcel Duchamp, comments on the BGH decision “Beuys Auction” , in: Wolfgang Büscher u. a. (Ed.), Festschrift for Joachim Bornkamm for his 65th birthday , Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65911-9 , pp. 835–848, here p. 837. The underlying concept of publicity prevails in literature Disagreement. For that part of the literature that represents a uniform public concept of the UrhG, the public obviously falls within the framework of the negative element of "first publication" ( § 6 para. 1 UrhG) with that of the positive element of public display ( § 15 para 3 UrhG analogously) together. A prevailing view in literature and jurisprudence sees a difference between the public terms of Section 6 (1) UrhG and that of Section 15 (3) UrhG (for the status of opinion in this regard, see Katzenberger / Metzger in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright , 5th ed . 2017, § 6 Rn. 7 ff.). Some voices in literature therefore think that the requirements to the public as part of the "primary insurance publication " are more stringent than those used as the basis for determining the public of the exhibition. So Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 22; Marcel Bisges, The concept of publicity in the copyright law , in: UFITA , 2014, No. 2, pp. 363–380, here p. 378 f. If one follows this view, it is possible that a second public exhibition also falls within the scope of protection of § 18 UrhG. See so explicitly Marcel Bisges, The concept of publicity in the copyright law , in: UFITA , 2014, No. 2, pp. 363–380, here p. 379.
  7. ↑ BGH, judgment of September 24, 2014, I ZR 35/11 = NJW 2015, 1690 - Hi Hotel II , Rn. 34; Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 7; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 17; Kühl, The international lending of museums , 2004, op. Cit., P. 79; Schack, Exhibition Rights and Exhibition Remuneration , 2008, op.cit., P. 818.
  8. ↑ Schack, exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration , 2008, op. Cit., P. 818. Vogel pleads for a narrow interpretation in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 18; Another view is Kühl, Der internationale Leihverkehr der Museen , 2004, op. cit., p. 79; probably also Kroitzsch / Götting in Ahlberg / Götting, BeckOK UrhG , as of January 1, 2015, § 18 Rn. 5. See also OLG Frankfurt, judgment of January 28, 2014, 11 U 111/12 = ZUM-RD 2014, 350, 351, which however could leave the question open.
  9. ↑ Dreyer in Heidelberg Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 18 Rn. 10; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 21st
  10. ↑ Dreyer in Heidelberg Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 18 Rn. 10; Haberstumpf in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, copyright, media law , 3rd edition 2015, UrhG § 18 Rn. 4th
  11. ↑ Dustmann in Fromm / Nordemann, Copyright , 12th edition. 2018, § 18 Rn. 8th; Ehrhardt in Wandtke / Bullinger, copyright , 4th edition 2014, § 18 marginal no. 2; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 21. In these cases, however, the author can base injunctive relief and claims for damages on the right to broadcast ( Section 20 UrhG) or the right to make them publicly available ( Section 19a UrhG).
  12. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 22; Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 11; Haberstumpf in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, copyright, media law , 3rd edition 2015, UrhG § 18 Rn. 4; Marcel Bisges, The concept of publicity in the copyright law , in: UFITA , 2014, No. 2, pp. 363–380, here pp. 377–379. The other view also demands that the group of people is not clearly delimited. In this sense, for example, Dreyer in Heidelberg Commentary on Copyright , 4th edition. 2018, § 18 Rn. 10, which represents a uniform public concept of the UrhG. In the case of the “one-time presentation” of building plans “to a fixed group of addressees (prospective buyers) for the purpose of forming an opinion”, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court denied the required public, cf. Judgment of January 28, 2014, 11 U 111/12 = ZUM-RD 2014, 350, 351.
  13. ↑ BGH, judgment of September 17, 2015, I ZR 228/14 = NJW 2016, 807 - Ramses , Rn. 45.
  14. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 22; Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 11; Haberstumpf in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, copyright, media law , 3rd edition 2015, UrhG § 18 Rn. 4th
  15. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 21st
  16. ↑ On the concept of the original, cf. closer Winfried Bullinger, original copyright term and digital technologies , in: Kunst und Recht , 2006, No. 4, pp. 106–112.
  17. ↑ So already the official justification , BT-Drs. 4/270 , p. 62. In the literature cf. only Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 44 marginal no. 18 ff .; Kotthoff in Heidelberg Commentary on Copyright , 4th edition 2018, § 44 Rn. 9; JB Nordemann in Fromm / Nordemann, copyright , 12th edition. 2018, § 44 marginal no. 13; Willi Erdmann, property ownership and copyright , in: Willi Erdmann, Wolfgang Gloy and Rolf Herber (eds.), Festschrift for Henning Piper , Beck, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-406-40880-X , pp. 655-676, here p. 663.
  18. ↑ Leistner in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 97 Rn. 11.
  19. ↑ Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 106 Rn. 5; Kudlich in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 106 Rn. 1.
  20. ^ So Dietz / Peukert in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 12 marginal no. 19th
  21. ↑ See only Dreyer in Heidelberger Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 18 Rn. 6; Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 1; Schack, Copyright and Copyright Contract Law , 8th edition 2017, Rn. 441; Beyer, Exhibition Rights and Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op.cit., P. 57.
  22. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 1 f .; Catharina Maracke, The Origin of the Copyright Act of 1965 , Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-428-10960-0 , p. 315.
  23. ^ Beyer, exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., P. 41; different view without further justification Albert Mösl, Zur Reform des Copyright , in: Deutsche Richterzeitung , vol. 43, 1965, pp. 386–389, here p. 387, who evaluates the exhibition right without restriction as "already recognized by the case law" . The idea of ​​a right to defend against unauthorized “making available” to the public was of course not alien to the jurisprudence. In its decision by Cosima Wagner in 1954, the BGH stated that “the right to decide whether and to what extent the protected work should be made available to the public” is “one of the most important powers that Copyright granted ”and follows“ even without express legal regulation from the personal rights components of copyright ”, even if this was related to an act that is not subject to today's exhibition law. See BGH, judgment of November 26, 1954, I ZR 266/52 = BGHZ 15, 249, 258 - Cosima Wagner . The statement, however, refers to a general and so far also unregulated right of publication, which has since found its expression in § 12 UrhG and is closely related to the exhibition right (see below).
  24. ↑ See for example Thomas Fuchs, Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Law) of September 9, 1965, Historisch-Synoptische Edition 1965-2017, § 18 , accessed on May 26, 2018.
  25. ↑ BT-Drs. 4/270 , p. 62.
  26. ↑ Heinz Püschel, Copyright , 2nd edition, Staatsverlag der DDR, Berlin 1986, p. 13.
  27. ↑ Law on Copyright of September 13, 1965 , reproduced below after being reproduced in UFITA 45/1966, pp. 117–143.
  28. ↑ a b Nordemann, The Exhibition Right (§18 UrhG) , 1999, op.cit., P. 29.
  29. ↑ In this sense Willi Erdmann, property ownership and copyright , in: Willi Erdmann, Wolfgang Gloy and Rolf Herber (eds.), Festschrift for Henning Piper , Beck, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-406-40880-X , pp. 655-676 , here p. 663; Donata v. Gruben, The copyright prohibition of distortion in dealing with original works of the fine arts , Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2013, ISBN 978-3-631-64491-1 , p. 229; Urban v. Detten, art exhibition and moral rights of the visual artist , Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59914-3 , p. 72.
  30. ↑ So Donata v. Gruben, The copyright prohibition of distortion in dealing with original works of the visual arts , Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2013, ISBN 978-3-631-64491-1 , p. 229; Klaunig / Müller, The Exploitation of Works of Fine Art through Public Presentation in the Way of the Exhibition , 2013, op. Cit., P. 705 (“structural disparity”).
  31. ↑ In this sense Schulze in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act , 6th edition 2018, § 18 marginal no. 15; Schack, Copyright and Copyright Contract Law , 8th edition 2017, Rn. 441 (for commercial use); ders., Exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration, in: Journal for Copyright and Media Law , 2008, No. 11, pp. 817–821, here pp. 820 ff .; Beyer, Exhibition Law and Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., Pp. 141 f. (indispensable legal right to remuneration for the exhibition of already published works); Nordemann, The Exhibition Right (§18 UrhG) , 1999, op. Cit., Pp. 29–30; Cool, finally an exhibition allowance? , 2004, op. Cit., P. 78 ff .; this., The international loan system of museums , Heymanns, Cologne 2004, ISBN 3-452-25800-9 , p. 87; Klaunig / Müller, The Exploitation of Works of Fine Art through Public Performance in the Way of the Exhibition , 2013, op. Cit .; Gerhard Pfennig, exhibition remuneration , 2017, op. Cit .; ders., Art, Market and Law: Introduction to the Law of Art Creation and the Exploitation of Art , 3rd edition, MUR, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-945939-03-1 , p. 84 f. Erdmann, on the other hand , does the current exhibition law disadvantage the artist? , 2011, op.cit., P. 1065; Kirchmaier, Reflections on the Introduction of Exhibition Remuneration , 2004, op. Cit., Pp. 73–75. Also skeptical - unlike in the previous edition - Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 12.
  32. ↑ Beyer, exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., P. 19 f.
  33. ↑ BT-Drs. 13/10811 , p. 7 f.
  34. ↑ SPD and Alliance 90 / Greens, Renewal - Justice - Sustainability (PDF, 0.3 MB), 2002, accessed on June 4, 2018, p. 57.
  35. ^ Final report of the study commission "Culture in Germany" , BT-Drs. 16/7000 , pp. 263 f., 266 (there the special comments in footnotes 229-231).
  36. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/8379 , p. 1.
  37. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/8379 , p. 1 f.
  38. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13485 , p. 2.
  39. ↑ BT-Drs. 17/13485 , p. 4 f.
  40. ^ German Bundestag - Stenographic Report - 250th Session , Plenary Minutes 17/250 , p. 32090.
  41. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/12094 , p. 2 f.
  42. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/12910 , p. 1.
  43. ↑ German Bundestag - Stenographic Report - 243rd Session , Plenary Protocol 18/243 , p. 25027.
  44. ↑ Exhibition remuneration initiative, THE INITIATIVE EXHIBITION REMUNERATION , accessed on June 4, 2018.
  45. ↑ See, for example, ver.di, specialist group visual arts, A fee / A fee - difference , accessed on June 4, 2018; professional association of visual artists berlin, the exhibition fee: sample contract , accessed on June 4, 2018; Adrienne Braun, Klamme painter , in: Stuttgarter Zeitung , July 29, 2017, p. 11; Christiane Meixner, Die Überlebenskünstler , in: Der Tagesspiegel , April 28, 2018, p. 6.
  46. ↑ See for example Schack, Kunst und Recht , 3rd ed. 2017, Rn. 682 ("exhibition fee" for the remuneration claim from the exhibition right); more in Beyer, Exhibition Rights and Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op.cit., p. 20 ff.
  47. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 12; Beyer, Exhibition Law and Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., P. 141; Klaunig / Müller, The exploitation of works of the fine arts through public presentation in the way of the exhibition , 2013, op. Cit., P. 705 (however, taken in and of itself “not sufficient”). Erdmann, on the other hand , does the current exhibition law disadvantage the artist? , 2011, op.cit., P. 1065.
  48. ↑ In this sense Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 12; Schack, Exhibition Rights and Exhibition Remuneration , 2008, op.cit., P. 821.
  49. ↑ Kirchmaier, Considerations for the introduction of an exhibition remuneration , 2004, op. Cit., P. 74. On the financial situation in great detail, see Mestmäcker / Schulze, copyright , status: 55th AL 2011, § 18 Rn. 15 ff.
  50. ↑ Thomas Dreier, Exploitation Rights of the Artist: Current Tendencies - Legal Policy Claims , in: Matthias Weller, Nicolai Kemle and Peter M. Lynen (Eds.), The Artist's Rights - The Art of Law: Proceedings of the First Heidelberg Art Law Day on September 8, 2007 in Heidelberg , Nomos, Baden-Baden 2008, ISBN 978-3-8329-3462-0 , pp. 97–113, here p. 111.
  51. ^ Walter, On Austrian Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., P. 46 f.
  52. ↑ Anderl in Kucsko / Handig, copyright , 2nd edition 2017, § 16 marginal no. 8th.
  53. ↑ Closer Gaderer in Kucsko, copyright , 1st edition 2008, § 18a p. 312 f.
  54. ↑ Walter, Austrian Copyright , 2008, Rn. 596; ders., On Austrian Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op.cit., p. 46.
  55. ↑ Walter, Austrian Copyright , 2008, Rn. 598; ders., On Austrian Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op.cit., p. 47.
  56. ↑ Walter, Austrian Copyright , 2008, Rn. 598; ders., The exhibition rights and exhibition remuneration , 1996, op.cit., p. 58.
  57. ↑ Helmut Gamerith, The most important changes to the 1996 amendment to the copyright law , in: Austrian papers for industrial property rights and copyright , Vol. 46, 1997, pp. 99–106, here p. 100; Walter, On Austrian Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op.cit., P. 48.
  58. ↑ a b government bill , 3 of the supplements to the stenographic minutes of the National Council XX. GP (PDF, 0.2 MB), p. 18.
  59. ↑ See in this respect OGH, November 23, 1999, 4 Ob 319 / 99m = ÖBl 2000, 228, 230 ff. - Bank Austria Kunstforum on the status of opinion in this regard.
  60. ↑ a b OGH, November 23, 1999, 4 Ob 319 / 99m = ÖBl 2000, 228 - Bank Austria Kunstforum .
  61. ↑ Walter, Austrian Copyright , 2008, Rn. 836.
  62. ↑ OGH, March 30, 2004, 4 Ob 11 / 04b . Critically Walter, Austrian Copyright , 2008, Rn. 837 (party to the proceedings).
  63. ↑ See BGBl 111/1936 ; Printed in Dillenz, materials on Austrian copyright law , 1986, p. 1 ff.
  64. ↑ No. 64 / Ge of the supplements to the stenographic minutes of the sessions of the Bundestag of the Federal State of Austria 1934 to 1936 ( digitized via the Austrian National Library), p. 41; Printed in Dillenz, materials on Austrian copyright law , 1986, p. 75.
  65. ^ Walter: Austrian Copyright. 2008, marginal no. 602. More on this also: The right to exhibit and the exhibition remuneration. 1996, op.cit., P. 58.
  66. ↑ Peter Ganea, People's Republic of China , in: Silke v. Lewinski (Ed.), Copyright Throughout the World , Status: 11/2017 (via Westlaw), § 8:19.
  67. ↑ Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op.cit., P. 37.
  68. ↑ Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op. Cit., P. 37 f .; Gautier, Propriété littéraire et artistique , 9th edition 2015, marginal no. 316; Vivant / Bruguière, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins , 3rd ed. 2016, marginal no. 550
  69. ↑ Lucas / Lucas / Lucas-Schloetter, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique , 4th edition 2012, marginal no. 305; Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op.cit., P. 39 ff.
  70. ↑ See, for example, Cour de cassation, Civ. 1 re , November 6, 2002 00-21867 (public exhibition of a photograph permit). For more information on the case law Lucas / Lucas / Lucas-Schloetter, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique , 4th edition 2012, marginal no. 305
  71. ↑ In this sense, for example Lucas / Lucas / Lucas-Schloetter, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique , 4th edition 2012, marginal no. 305
  72. ↑ Vivant / Bruguière, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins , 3rd ed. 2016, Rn. 550
  73. ↑ Tatsuhiro Ueno, Japan , in: Silke v. Lewinski (Ed.), Copyright Throughout the World , Status: 11/2017 (via Westlaw), § 22:19.
  74. ↑ Peter Ganea and Christopher Heath, Economic Rights and Limitations , in: Peter Ganea, Christopher Heath and Hiroshi Saitô (eds.), Japanese Copyright Law: Writings in Honor of Gerhard Schricker , Kluwer, Den Haag 2005, ISBN 90-411-2393 -8 , pp. 51–76, here p. 55.
  75. ^ JP Mikus, Canada , in: Silke v. Lewinski (Ed.), Copyright Throughout the World , Status: 11/2017 (via Westlaw), § 7:19. Critical on the limitation to more recent works: Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op.cit., P. 49.
  76. ^ Nabhan, Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada , 1993, op.cit., P. 117.
  77. ^ Nabhan, Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada , 1993, op.cit., P. 109 f.
  78. ^ Nabhan, Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada , 1993, op.cit., P. 111.
  79. ↑ Nabhan, Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada , 1993, op.cit., P. 111 f.
  80. ↑ Nabhan, Le droit d'exposition des œuvres artistiques au Canada , 1993, op.cit., P. 113 f.
  81. ↑ The translations in this paragraph largely follow the translation of State Law 94-553 amending the Copyright Law of October 19, 1976 in UFITA 82/1978, pp. 317-406.
  82. ↑ Patry, Patry on Copyright , Status: 3/2018 (via Westlaw), § 15: 3.
  83. ^ Reese, The Public Display Right , 2001, op.cit., P. 86.
  84. ↑ See also Reese, The Public Display Right , 2001, op.cit., Pp. 90 f.
  85. ↑ Tangorre v. Mako's, Inc. , 2003 WL 470577 (SDNY 2003).
  86. ↑ Matthew Rimmer, Rejoyce Dublin 2004: Revived Copyrights and Public Exhibitions , in: Australian Law Librarian , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, pp. 17-29 (also online: HeinOnline , not freely accessible), here p. 24 ; ders., Bloomsday: Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals , in: SCRIPTed , Vol. 2, No. 3, 2005, pp. 345–389 (also online: HeinOnline , not freely accessible), here pp. 347, 374.
  87. ↑ Matthew Rimmer, Rejoyce Dublin 2004: Revived Copyrights and Public Exhibitions , in: Australian Law Librarian , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, pp. 17–29 (also online: HeinOnline , not freely accessible), here p. 26 .
  88. ↑ COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2004 of June 3, 2004; on this Matthew Rimmer, Rejoyce Dublin 2004: Revived Copyrights and Public Exhibitions , in: Australian Law Librarian , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, pp. 17-29 (also online: HeinOnline , not freely accessible), here p. 26 f.
  89. ↑ Art. 50, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act. Thereafter, the original or a copy of a work of visual art or a photograph may be exhibited by its owner or a person who has borrowed the original from the owner. Cf. Barbora Králičková, Slovak Republic , in: Silke v. Lewinski (Ed.), Copyright Throughout the World , Status: 11/2017 (via Westlaw), § 32:22.
  90. ↑ For example with v. Lewinski / Walter in Walter / v. Lewinski, European Copyright Law , 2010, § 11.4.8.
  91. ↑ v. Lewinski / Walter in Walter / v. Lewinski, European Copyright Law , 2010, § 11.4.8.
  92. ↑ Bechtold in Dreier / Hugenholtz, Concise European Copyright Law , 2nd edition 2016, p. 442; Stamatoudi / Torremans, EU Copyright Law , 2014, §§ 11.17 f .; v. Lewinski / Walter in Walter / v. Lewinski, European Copyright Law , 2010, § 11.3.23. This was considered by Adolf Dietz, The protection of intellectual property in the information age - the draft EU Copyright Directive of November 1997 , in: Intellectual Property Quarterly , Vol. 2, No. 4, 1998, pp. 335-349, here P. 343, on the identical wording of Article 3 (1) of the draft directive of November 10, 1997, COM (97) 628 final; however, the passage from the recitals to the contrary - listed below - was not yet included in this draft version.
  93. ↑ ECJ, judgment of October 4, 2011, C-403/08 = GRUR 2012, 156 - Football Association Premier League and Murphy , Rn. 200 ff.
  94. ^ Ricketson / Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighboring Rights , Vol. 1, 2nd ed. 2005, § 12.44; Vicent López, Nuevos aspectos del derecho de exposición , 1999, op.cit., Pp. 87 f.
  95. ↑ For details, see Duchemin, Réflexions sur le droit d'exposition , 1993, op.cit., P. 57 ff.
  96. ↑ v. Lewinski, International Copyright Law and Policy , 2008, §§ 3.44 ff.
  97. ↑ v. Lewinski, International Copyright Law and Policy , 2008, § 3.44; Elizabeth Adeney, The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers: An International and Comparative Analysis , Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006, ISBN 978-0-19-928474-0 , para. In.01.
  98. ↑ Vicent López, Nuevos aspectos del derecho de exposición , 1999, op.cit., P. 99 ff.
  99. ↑ Vicent López, Nuevos aspectos del derecho de exposición , 1999, op.cit., P. 101 f.
  100. ↑ v. Lewinski, International Copyright Law and Policy , 2008, § 3.47.
  101. ↑ Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright , 5th edition 2017, § 18 marginal no. 1. Similar to Hertin, Copyright , 2nd edition 2008, Rn. 187 (“Special case of the right to publish”); Vicent López, Nuevos aspectos del derecho de exposición , 1999, op. Cit., P. 101. For the classification in the German copyright system in detail, Beyer, Exhibition Law and Exhibition Remuneration , 2000, op. Cit., P. 46 ff.
  102. ↑ Ulmer, Copyright and Publishing Law , 3rd edition 1980, p. 225.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 25, 2018 .