Copyright (Austria)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Copyright Act
Long title: Federal Act on Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Rights (Copyright Act).
Abbreviation: UrhG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Republic of Austria
Legal matter: copyright
Reference: Federal Law Gazette No. 111/1936
Date of law: 1936
Last change: BGBl. I No. 63/2018
Legal text: Copyright law in the RIS
Please note the note on the applicable legal version !

The Austrian copyright law protects the intellectual property of the copyright in a broader sense. As a central law, the Copyright Act contains the enacted statutory provisions and makes this protection legally enforceable.

The Copyright Act

The central legal source of copyright is the Federal Act on Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Rights (Copyright Act) , which was originally drawn up in 1936 and has since seen numerous amendments.

Structure of the law

The Austrian Copyright Act consists of five main parts:

I. Main section: Copyright in works of literature and art. (§§ 1–65)
Chapter II: Related Property Rights. (Sections 66–80)
III. Main part: law enforcement. (Sections 81–93)
Part IV: Scope of the law: (§§ 94-100)
V main part: Transitional and final provisions: (§§ 101–114)

At its center is the first main piece.

The short title “Copyright Act” contained in the Federal Act on Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Property Rights (Copyright Act) - unofficially abbreviated UrhG - refers to copyright in the broader sense . It includes both the provisions on copyright in the narrower sense dealt with in the first section and the provisions applicable to related rights in the second section .

As its name suggests, the related rights are not copyrights. They are, however, in a close "kinship" relationship with them, which also influences the structure of the second main piece. It restricts itself to the peculiarities and otherwise links its provisions with those of the first main part. Knowledge of this is therefore an indispensable prerequisite for understanding the law and for correctly interpreting its individual regulations.

I. Main section: Copyright in works of literature and art (§§ 1–65)

Explanation of key terms (§§ 1–25)

The work (§§ 1–9)

Terms :

Works within the meaning of the Copyright Act "are peculiar intellectual creations in the fields of literature, music, the visual arts and film art." (Section 1, Paragraph 1) These are:

  • Works of music (compositions, the lyrics are a literary work)
  • as works of literature (§ 2)
    • Language works of all kinds including computer programs,
    • Stage works whose means of expression are gestures and other body movements (choreographic and pantomime works),
    • Works of a scientific or instructive nature that exist in pictorial representations in the surface or in space, provided they do not count among the works of the visual arts.
  • as works of the fine arts (§ 3)
  • as works of film art (§ 3) soundless moving picture works and moving picture works with sound.

Creation:

  • Mere ideas are not protected by copyright. They can be taken up, continued and carried out by others; Formed thoughts are only protected when they enter the outside world; According to the Austrian Copyright Act, it is not necessary that they are specified on a material medium (e.g. paper): It is sufficient if they are expressed in a way in which someone else - "at least theoretically - can have knowledge" . Only creations that belong to one of the four listed categories of works are protected; Creation is a real act: a work arises from being created; It can therefore also be done by minors and does not require any state recognition.

Strange spiritual creation:

  • In order for a creation to have the character of a work, it must be based on creativity , i.e. the spiritual creative power of a person; This requirement only fulfills “an individually peculiar achievement that stands out from the everyday, commonplace, and usually produced”. The protection requirements are the same for all four work categories; The peculiarity (individuality) is of particular importance for the evaluation; "Works at the lower limit" of protection "are referred to as 'small coins'". "
    • Even if a work does not reach a level of creation and therefore does not fall under the copyright law, in certain cases the fair trade law can be asserted against simple copying ("parasite on third-party performance" or "slavish imitation").

Protection of work parts

  • The prevailing opinion assumes that “... every part is only protected if it is a 'peculiar spiritual creation' as such. The copyright is only violated if the creative design elements are adopted. ”“ Even the insignificant part can be protected as such if it is just a 'peculiar intellectual creation' ”.“ It can happen that a work consists of several parts, none these parts, but probably the overall composition, should be protected, for example with so-called 'assemblages' [...] "

Free works (§ 7)

  • (1) Laws, ordinances, official edicts, notices and decisions as well as official works of the type specified in § 2 no.1 or 3 that are exclusively or primarily for official use enjoy no copyright protection.
(2) Map works produced or processed by the Federal Office for Metrology and Surveying (Section 5 Paragraph 1) and intended for distribution (Section 16) are not free works.


The author (§§ 10-13)

Terms
  • The author of a work is whoever created it. (§ 10. Paragraph 1)]

Preliminary remark:

  • There is no uniform international term for copyright; Austrian copyright law is based on the principle of creation; The creation principle restricts "the scope of copyright to human creation" and "at the same time" forms the "connecting point for the original acquisition of rights."

Creation principle:

  • Because only natural persons can create works, only they can establish authorship; The authorship itself arises directly and inevitably with the act of creation; Co-authorship is possible. (§ 11)

Rights associated with authorship:

  • At the same time as the authorship, the property and personal rights reserved for the author are acquired, which form an inseparable unit and are dealt with in the section on copyright . This right is restricted by the special regulations for commercially produced cinematographic works, the special regulations for computer programs, the special regulations for database works as well as the exceptions named in the section Restrictions on exploitation rights .

Transfer of copyright:

  • In principle, copyright can only be transferred by way of death. (§ 23) / The legal provisions concerning the author also apply, with a few exceptions, to those to whom the copyright has been transferred. (§ 10. Paragraph 1)

Copyright (§§ 14-25)

Terms

Copyright is the sum of all rights reserved exclusively for the author.

About the term copyright :

  • The term copyright has a twofold meaning. On the one hand, it describes the sum of all legal provisions that protect the intellectual property of the author and, on the other hand, the rights to which the author is entitled based on his intellectual property. The laws summarized under the word “copyright” regulate and thus protect the property rights of the author that are summarized under the term copyright .
  • Copyright protects both the intellectual and financial interests of the creator.

Rights reserved exclusively to the author:

Exploitation rights :

Protection of intellectual interests: (§ 19-21)

  • The intellectual interests of the author are protected by the author's personal rights . This denotes the inseparable connection between the author and his work: The work is his "spiritual child".
  • The moral right includes the moral right in the narrower sense and the moral right in the broader sense . The first includes the protection of authorship (Section 19) , the right to determine the author's designation of the work (Section 20) and protection against unauthorized changes to the work (Section 21) and its title. (§ 80) ./ The moral right in the broader sense cannot be clearly defined.
In the monistic theory represented today, the intellectual and financial interests of the author are linked to form a right with a double function. This double function adheres to the entire copyright, including the facts covered by moral law.
The copyright law contains the rights exclusively reserved to the author. The motive why the author uses or does not use them can be an intellectual interest and / or a financial one. Examples: An artist can refuse to allow his work to be used as the background for an advertising poster because the price is too low or because his work is too bad for him. A writer can omit his name because he wants to remain anonymous or because he will gain financial benefit from it (ghostwriter).

Further protective provisions (§§ 23-25)

In addition to the limited transfer of copyright, exploitation rights and personal rights in the narrower sense, the Copyright Act also contains the following provisions relating to the interests of the author:

  • Regulation of the obligations of the owner of a workpiece: (§ 22)
  • Regulations on the granting of usage permits and usage rights: (§ 24)
  • Determination of execution restrictions: (§ 25)
  • Provisions for the protection of intellectual interests in the case of free use of works (§ 57)
  • Title protection provisions (Section 80)
Exploitation and usage rights (Sections 14–18a; Sections 26–32)

1. Under the designation "exploitation rights", the following rights exclusively reserved to the author are listed in § 14:

The exploitation rights: ( Section 14. Paragraph 1 )

  • The author has the monopoly to grant other usage rights by granting usage rights and usage permits; This gives him the ability to perceive his intellectual and material interests independently.
  • The exploitation rights are finally (exhaustively) listed in the law;

Editing or translation rights:

  • The author of a translation or other processing has an independent copyright in his work. (§ 5. Paragraph 1) The exercise of the exploitation rights to which he is entitled is only permitted if the author of the edited work grants him the exclusive right or the permission to do so; This reservation is known as the "right to edit or translate". (Section 14. Paragraph 2)

The public communication of the content:

  • The public communication of the content of a work of literature or film art is reserved to the author, as long as neither the work nor its essential content has been published with the consent of the author. (§ 14 Paragraph 3)

2. General information on exploitation rights:

Physical and incorporeal types of utilization:

A work may be on a physically tangible material (eg., Paper, diskette, house wall) held , for the eye and / or ear perceptible and from a computer available to be made. Taking into account the additional provisions contained in the individual exploitation rights, the contents of the exploitation rights can be classified as follows:

  • Regulations that relate to physical recovery:
They include the right of reproduction / the right of distribution / as well as rental and lending. The right of reproduction relates to the production of physical copies of the work, the other three to the use of work pieces.
  • Regulations relating to incorporeal reproduction:
They include the right to broadcast / the right to speak, perform and present / the right to make available.
  • Regulations that relate to a mere monetary claim:
Among them is the resale rights . / The remuneration claims to be asserted by the collecting societies, e.g. B. for lending workpieces, are factually part of the respective exploitation right concerned. See also: Directive 2001/84 / EC (Resale Right Directive) .

Independent and mutually independent rights

"The individual rights of exploitation legally guaranteed to the author are independent and mutually independent rights."

Example: Anyone who makes a third-party work available for retrieval from someone else's website on his website without permission is violating the right of reproduction and the right of availability reserved to the author.

License to use work and right to use work

In the case of the license to use a work , the author “permits” others to exercise one or more of the exploitation rights reserved for them. This does not affect his own rights. This is why it is also possible to grant different persons and legal entities the same usage license.

  • Example:
A wants to use a protected melody as a ringtone. The author allows him. Then B and later C come with the same request and the author agrees with them too. With D it becomes too much for him and he refuses to give his consent. A to C continue to use the ringtone rightly, D such use is prohibited.

With the right of use , someone else receives the exclusive right to exercise one or more of the exploitation rights reserved to the author. This also restricts the rights of the author. The contract of use concluded for the granting or transfer is binding for all contracting parties.

  • Example:
A wants to use a protected melody as a ringtone. On February 15, the author grants him the necessary rights of use.
a. If B and later C approach him with the same request, he must refer them to A. He himself transferred the rights to A.
b. The author of the said melody would like to use it as a ringtone on his own cell phone after February 15th. Since he has transferred the rights to A, he must also obtain permission from A.
c. The author can think of a better variation of the melody. Since this is an adaptation of the original, he cannot issue any work usage permits or work usage rights for the use of the variation as a ringtone without A's consent.
d. As early as February 1, the author gave his nephew N permission to use the melody as a ringtone. Because the contract with A was not concluded until February 15, A can only prohibit nephew N from using the melody as a ringtone if this was agreed in the contract for use.

Usage contracts

Work usage contracts are contracts with which usage rights are granted. ( § 24/1 in conjunction with § 26 ) Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Act, the provisions of general contract law apply to them.

  • The granting of a right to use a work also affects the author. As far as the granted right of use extends, he receives the legal status of a third party for the use of his work.
  • The author and owner of the exploitation right each have the independent right to prosecute copyright infringements in court.
  • With the expiry of the right of use , the right of exploitation acquires its former force . § 26
  • Unless otherwise agreed in the contract, the use of work permits issued prior to the conclusion of the work use contract are also binding for the owner of the work use rights.

3. The individual exploitation rights:

Editing or translation rights

Public communication of the content

Right of reproduction ( § 15 )

Distribution right ( § 16 )

Important terms:

  • Workpiece: original work or physical copies of the same.
  • Held for sale: The public offering of workpieces.
  • Placing on the market: Granting someone the actual or legal power of disposal over a workpiece, in particular by selling, giving away, lending or renting.
  • Exhaustion principle: The author's right to distribute a certain workpiece ends as soon as someone has acquired ownership of it with the consent of the authorized person .
Exceptions to the principle of exhaustion: If the consent has only been given for a certain area (e.g. USA), the workpiece may not be distributed in another area (e.g. Japan). * The right of distribution does not expire if a workpiece is passed on by the author, e.g. B. by donation, with the agreement that the work should remain in the privacy of the recipient.
Limitations of the principle of exhaustion: The distribution right for renting remains in place, that for lending is tied to a fee that can only be claimed from collecting societies. (For details see § 16a Renting and Lending ) When reselling originals of a work of the arts, the author can be entitled to a claim for remuneration. (Details see resale right)
  • European exhaustion principle: The EEA area is a single area. The distribution right and the exhaustion principle cannot be restricted to sub-states or other sub-areas.
Exceptions to the European Exhaustion Principle: If there are special, justifying reasons, such as B. for data carriers with school versions for software.

Renting and lending ( § 16a )

Resale right ( § 16b )

Broadcasting right ( § 17ff )

6. Right of presentation, performance and presentation ( § 18 )

7. Right of disposal ( § 18a )

Reservations in favor of the author (§§ 33-37)

Interpretation of copyright contracts

Unclear and incomplete copyright contracts may require subsequent interpretations and / or amendments to the contract. The legal bases for this are:

  • The rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, such as B. that of § 34 Copyright Act.
  • The rights and obligations of the parts of the contract that are intended to be changed in the Copyright Act and about which no provision was made in the copyright contract, such as B. that of § 33/1 Copyright Act.
  • In the case of publishing contracts, the provisions contained in §§ 1172 and 1173 ABGB as well as the regulations of the German Publishing Act, insofar as they can be considered a custom. In addition, some are of the opinion that the Consumer Protection Act is also applied at least analogously.
  • The general provisions of civil law applicable to the interpretation of contracts.

Supplements to the contract will be necessary in particular if the contracting parties did not consider a type of use that is a prerequisite for fulfilling the purpose of the contract.

Special regulations (§§ 38-40h)

1. Special regulations for commercially produced film works

The special regulations stipulated here apply exclusively to commercially produced films.

In the Austrian legal system, activities are considered to be "commercial" that are carried out independently, regularly and with the intention of generating income or other economic advantage. It is irrelevant what purposes this income is dedicated to. Therefore, if a cinematographic work is produced with the intention of exploiting it commercially, it is subject to the special regulations for commercially produced cinematographic works.

Even if with certain reservations, one can therefore assume that film works in particular that are created in the exercise of the trade responsible for film production are commercially produced films.

  • The copyright law has different objectives than the trade regulations. It relates to the protection of the intellectual property of the author and his ideal and economic interests. The trade law regulates the affairs of the trade. That is why blanket statements are not justified. A good example of this is provided by the last sentence of § 1/6 of the Trade Regulations 1994. There, activities of associations are classified as commercial activities on the basis of a legal presumption, which is however refutable.
  • Details on § 1 Trade Regulations 1994.

However, not all film productions that are considered commercially produced film works on the basis of copyright law are subject to commercial law. The Supreme Court has classified the film productions of the ORF as commercially produced films, although this is not a commercial enterprise within the meaning of the trade regulations.

The main content of the special provisions for commercially produced cinematographic works is the so-called cessio legis. Film productions can be very expensive and complex industrial products that involve a large number of people. For reasons of uniformity and legal certainty , the exploitation rights of all owners of copyrights and ancillary copyrights are transferred by law to the producer at the time they arise, who then has to ensure internal compensation of the financial claims.

2. Special provisions for computer programs

The question of how computer programs should be protected has long been controversial. The options offered were patent law, competition law and the creation of a proprietary protection system. In the 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act, they were incorporated into the Austrian Copyright Act as linguistic works in Section 2 (1).

The classification of the protection of computer programs has established itself internationally for practical reasons, but viewed from the objectives and concerns of the copyright law it is not without problems. The section Special Provisions for Computer Programs therefore represents a special legal regulation for the provisions contained in it. Matters not regulated in it are subject to the other provisions of the Copyright Act.

  • Advantages of treating computer programs as copyrighted language works:
Due to the creation principle , protection arises with the creation of the work and does not require any further formalities.
Worldwide international agreements already exist for copyright, which are therefore also applicable to the protection of computer programs.
  • Disadvantages of treating computer programs as copyrighted language works:
The classification of computer programs in copyright law is incorrect because they lack any reference to art.
The machine-readable object code cannot be perceived by the human senses.
The protection granted by copyright goes beyond what is necessary, which is particularly noticeable in the long protection periods applicable to copyright.

3. Special rules for databases

Databases "are collections of works, data or other independent elements, arranged systematically or methodically and individually accessible by electronic means or otherwise."

  • Database works are databases that are collections within the meaning of Section 6 of the Copyright Act.
  • There is a double protection for database works that also meet the requirements of protected databases. They are subject to both the provisions for database works and those for protected databases.

Restrictions on exploitation rights (Sections 41-59c)

1. General note: The exploitation rights and the property rights mentioned in the main section Related property rights ensure the financial interests of the authors or manufacturers. In this respect, they are part of their assets and thus their property. The inviolability of property is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Austrian Federal Constitution and can only be restricted by law.

2. Free use of works: As part of the Copyright Act, the following restrictions on exploitation and protective rights it contains are part of the restrictions on property rights established by a law:

  • The restrictions dealt with in Sections 41 to 59c, that is
The provisions contained in Sections 41 to 57 on the free use of works, for example the school and university privilege, according to which the required number of photocopies may be made for teaching purposes and
the restrictions listed in Sections 58 to 59c,
as long as they are not affected by special regulations. (See e.g. computer programs § 40d).
  • The restrictions listed in the special regulations for commercially produced cinematographic works, special regulations for computer programs and special regulations for database works.
  • The restrictions listed in the main section Related Property Rights (such as those mentioned in Section 69), with the exception of the protection of letters and portraits, which is based on the general protection of personality (MRK / 8).

3. Summary table: Because the regulations are not regulated by the free use of works in the Copyright Act clearly and the individual in favor of the public members rights of use and Permission in the law exhaustively, are thus conclusively stated, was as non-binding guidance one

Overview table on the regulation of the free use of works according to §§ 41 to 57 of the Copyright Act

created.

4. Recent jurisprudence: Since June 12, 2001, the Supreme Court has assumed the existence of free usage rights that are not laid down in the Copyright Act. The prerequisite is that the fundamental right to the inviolability of property collides with another fundamental right and therefore a weighing of interests is necessary. Specifically, the decisions made so far concern the collision with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. In teaching, there are critical voices against this judicature, which the Supreme Court describes as “recent jurisprudence”, because the legislature and not the courts are called upon to weigh up such matters. These would only have the option of having the existing legal provisions reviewed by the Constitutional Court.

Duration of the copyright (§§ 60-65)

  • For works of literature, music and the visual arts by well-known authors (identification according to § 12), the standard protection period of 70 years after the death of the author (excluding the year of death itself) applies . If there are several authors, it ends 70 years after the death of the last co-author.
    • Subsequent rights for the resale of original works of fine arts according to § 16b end directly with the respective death.
    • Cinematic works are not specifically listed in this section.
  • For works whose author is not known, the copyright ends 70 years after creation. If the work was published within these 70 years, the copyright ends 70 years after publication (i.e. a maximum of 140 years). The publisher or, if not specified, the publisher is deemed to be the authorized person.
    • Within the time limit, the author's true name can be revealed through him or his heirs. Then the term of protection is to be calculated as for a known author. Likewise, the term of protection is to be calculated as with a known author, if the pseudonym assumed by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity.

There is no limit to physical property: a house, picture or other object can be passed on from generation to generation. The intellectual property of the author, however, is limited in time. After the period has expired, the author or his legal successors are no longer entitled to any exploitation rights or personal rights.

Chapter II: Related Property Rights (§§ 66-80)

1. General information The applicable Austrian copyright law was the first to distinguish between copyright and related rights. This solved a problem that had arisen due to the technical development of records, films and radio broadcasts. Anyone who wanted to take part in lectures and performances of works by then had to be personally present at the event. It was now possible to make this accessible regardless of the place and time of the original performance. The interpreter ran the risk that others would benefit from his performance, but he himself received nothing.

In order to secure the rights of the performers, first Germany and then Austria began to grant the interpreter of a work editing rights. His individual performance in the lecture and the performance was regarded as an arrangement of the work and the interpreter as the author of this arrangement. His services were protected by copyright. This argumentation was not recognized internationally, although it was well known that national protective regulations were necessary in favor of the interpreter.

The Austrian Copyright Act took this development into account. On the one hand, it did not grant the interpreters and, on the other hand, the manufacturers of photos, sound carriers and radio broadcasts full copyright, but one that was tailored to their needs.

2. The related property rights dealt with in the Austrian Copyright Act As can already be seen from the wording of the title of the law, there is a copyright law and several self-contained related property rights. Each one of these is considered in itself a “variation” of the copyright law regulated in the first main section, tailored to the special needs. The content of the second main part thus consists of a “collection” of sometimes very different protective provisions.

3. Reference technique In order to determine which provisions of the first main section are to be applied to a specific related property right, the law uses a reference technique .

4. Rome Agreement The lectures and performances of works of literature and music, the manufacturers of phonograms and the broadcasting companies are protected by individual national copyright laws in eighty-eight signatory states on the basis of the Rome Agreement. All related rights not mentioned in the Rome Convention are the subject of national legislation.

Protection of lectures and performances of works of literature and music (§§ 66-72)

The performance protection covers lectures and performances of works, even if their term of protection has already expired or if they are free works within the meaning of Section 7 of the Copyright Act.

  • The ancillary copyrights for lectures and performances of works of literature and music are directly mentioned in the law.
  • The ancillary copyright for lectures and performances of works of the visual arts (e.g. action art) results on the one hand from the interpretation of the Rome Agreement and on the other hand from the fact that the law obviously does not contain any conclusive regulation.
  • The performing artists and the organizers are the owners of the property rights.
  • Example for explanation:
A publicly recites a poem by B. He is only allowed to do so with permission from B, since B is the author.
The lecture itself is neither protected by copyright nor an ancillary copyright. This means that the speaker's expression is not protected. Only those are covered by the performance protection
  • 1. Utilization on image or sound carriers (§§ 66-69)
  • 2. Utilization in broadcasting (§ 70)
  • 3. Utilization for public communication (Section 71)
  • 4. Utilization for public availability (§ 71a)
  • 5. Common regulations (§ 72)

Protection of photographs, sound carriers, radio broadcasts and bequeathed works (§§ 73-76b)

1. Protection of photographs

  • The protection of photographs is not covered by the Rome Convention. The national legislature decides on its existence.
  • Protection is a "real" ancillary copyright.
  • This property right exists parallel to any existing copyrights.
  • Due to the low demands on the work height now in Austria, it can be assumed that everyday pictures also enjoy copyright protection. The pure performance protection is thus reduced to those products that are determined by default settings and which therefore do not have a reference to the creator of the specific image, i.e. usually only to "machine recordings, computer-controlled photos and satellite photos" .
  • This also calls into question, for dogmatic reasons, the statutory transfer of ancillary copyrights to the entrepreneur for commercially produced photographs. In any case, it seems to be advisable to make appropriate contractual agreements on the exploitation rights.
  • There are special regulations for photographs of people, which benefit the purchaser, the person depicted and the close relatives named in § 75 UrhG.
  • The mere production of unchanged copies of photographs or of unchanged copies with a "photographic printing process" does not constitute an independent ancillary copyright.
  • Moving images are subject to the provisions for photographs in accordance with Section 73, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act.
  • The term of protection for published photographs is 50 years after publication and, if the photograph was not published within this period, 50 years after it was taken. Overall, the term of protection can be 100 years (if it is published around the 50th year after inclusion).
  • When calculating the protection periods ... the calendar year in which the fact that was decisive for the beginning of the period occurred is not to be counted (Section 64).

2. Protection of sound carriers

  • The protection of sound carriers falls under the Rome Convention
  • The property right is a “real” ancillary copyright.
  • This property right exists parallel to any existing copyrights.
  • The term of protection for sound carriers that have been published or “made available” for public reproduction (Article 18a) is 50 years after publication and, if the sound carrier has not appeared within this period, 50 years after recording. Overall, the term of protection can be 100 years (if it appears around the 50th year after admission).
  • When calculating the protection periods ... the calendar year in which the fact that was decisive for the beginning of the period occurred is not to be counted (Section 64).

3. Protection of broadcasts

  • The protection of broadcasts falls under the Rome Convention
  • The property right is a “real” ancillary copyright.
  • This property right exists parallel to any existing copyrights.
  • The term of protection is 50 years after the initial broadcast.
  • When calculating the protection periods ... the calendar year in which the fact that was decisive for the beginning of the period occurred is not to be counted (Section 64).

4. Protection of abandoned works

  • The protection of abandoned works is not covered by the Rome Convention.

The protection of these works was included in the Austrian Copyright Act in the 1966 copyright amendment on the basis of the Protection Period Directive.

  • The property right is a real ancillary copyright.
  • The reason for protection is the effort required for publication.
  • Publication is permitted if it does not violate legal standards, such as B. Theft of the manuscript or behavior of the owner contrary to the contract.
  • Contrary to the comparable provision of the German Copyright Act, the right of succession under the Austrian Copyright Act expires twenty-five years after the publication and not twenty-five years after the publication of the work.
  • When calculating the protection periods ... the calendar year in which the fact that was decisive for the beginning of the period occurred is not to be counted (Section 64).

Protected databases (§§76c – 76e)

Protected databases are those "whose procurement, checking or presentation of their content required a substantial investment in terms of type or scope".

  • The protection of databases is not covered by the Rome Convention.
  • The term “substantial investments” is an indefinite legal term that needs to be interpreted through teaching and judicature. However, the requirements must not be too high. A possible assessment criterion will probably be the question of how far the investments differ from the "everyday".
  • When assessing the investments made, both qualitative and quantitative aspects must be taken into account. Because it can be assumed that the quantitative are dependent on the qualitative, in the vast majority of cases the quantitative will be a sufficient criterion for assessment.
  • The investment also includes the time, effort and energy required to create the database. This means that databases created as a hobby can also fall under the protection provisions.

The term sui-generis protection used for the protected databases comes from the database directive , with the implementation of which the provisions for database works and protected databases were introduced into the Austrian Copyright Act.

Letter and portrait protection (§§ 77-78)

1. Mail protection (§ 77)

2. Image protection (§ 78) :

see right on your own picture

Messages and title protection (§§ 79-80)

1. Protection of messages (§ 79)

2. Title protection (§ 80)

literature

  • Walter Dillenz, Daniel Gutman: Practical commentary on copyright, Austrian copyright law and collecting society law. 2nd, extended edition Springer, Vienna / New York 2004
  • Walter Dillenz (Ed.): Materials on Austrian copyright law. In: ÖSGRUM 3, Manz, Vienna 1986 [quoted: Dillenz, ÖSGRUM 3]
  • Daniel Gutman: Copyright on the Internet in Austria, Germany and the EU . (PDF; 1.1 MB) , dissertation, 2003, juridicum.at - With legal comparisons [Cited: Gutman, copyright on the Internet in Austria, Germany and the EU (NWV, BWV Vienna / Berlin, 2003) page]
  • Kucsko, Guido (ed.), Anderl, Axel ( arrangement ): Copyright . systematic commentary on copyright law, ed. by Guido Kucsko. Arranged by Axel Anderl u. a., Manz, Vienna, 2008, ISBN 978-3-214-00491-0 Cited: Anderl in Kucsko, copyright.recht (2008) [Page] Note: Used as the main comment.
  • OGH, Supreme Court, legal sentences, justice (OGH, OLG, LG, BG, AUSL) ris2.bka.gv.at
  • Manfred Rehbinder, Adriano Viganó: Copyright and related rights with executive ordinances, subsidiary laws, intergovernmental agreements (in particular WIPO and TRIPS agreements, RBC and Rome agreements) , other materials and subject indexes. In: Manfred Rehbinder, Adriano Viganó (eds.); Karl-Peter Uhlig, Lorenz Haas (collaboration): URG Comment: Copyright 3rd, revised edition, Orell Füssli, Zurich 2008; ISBN 978-3-280-07143-4 (Quoted: Rehbinder / Viganó, 3rd edition, Art. [Comment])
  • Michael M. Walter: Austrian Copyright. Manual, Part I: Substantive Copyright, Ancillary Copyright Law, Copyright Contract Law, Media and Law. Vienna 2008
  • Get the copyright

Web links

Wikibooks: Get the copyright  - learning and teaching materials

Individual evidence

  • jusline : Used - unless otherwise stated - for links to laws and legal positions. (The comments attached there, however, are not part of the quotations)
  1. Federal Law Gazette No. 111/1936 in the version of Federal Law Gazette I No. 81/2006 (UrhG-Nov. 2006)
  2. On the terms copyright in the narrower and broader sense, see also: Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [XLIX].
  3. a b cf. on this: Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright law (2008) [85f]
  4. See: Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [99f]
  5. See on this: Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright law (2008) [87]
  6. See e.g. B. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [659]
  7. See the explanations in: Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [87–89]
  8. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [89f] with reference to established case law. Of the Supreme Court
  9. So also for works of the fine arts. Compare, on the other hand, the German legal situation, shown in height of creation
  10. See else in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [91f]
  11. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [92]
  12. Through appropriate agreements, the author of a work can allow third parties to use the work he has created for a wide variety of purposes. ( Memento of the original from April 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Lower Austria Chamber of Commerce @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / portal.wko.at
  13. Systematic overview of competition law - Prohibition of unfair business practices (§ 1 UWG) - 1.3 Exploitation of the protection association against unfair competition
  14. a b c Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [100]
  15. a b cf. Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright (2008) [186f]
  16. ^ Rehbinder / Viganò, 3rd edition. Art. 6 N 2 [commentary]
  17. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [186f]
  18. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [354]
  19. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [191f]
  20. a b cf. Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright (2008) [318]
  21. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [318]
  22. Cf. Gutman, Copyright on the Internet in Austria, Germany and the EU (NWV, BWV Vienna / Berlin, 2003) page 36
  23. See Anderl in Kucsko. copyright (2008) [216]
  24. The following presentation is based on Rehbinder / Viganó, 3rd edition, Art. 9 N 1 [commentary]
  25. OGH January 26, 1999, 4 Ob 345 / 98h-Radio Melody III
  26. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [224]
  27. Examples from the author. Otherwise cf. the explanations in Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [357] and [361ff]
  28. See e.g. B. Walter, Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, No. 1778
  29. § 24/2 ÖUrhG
  30. See physical “concept of work”, from explanations of the legislator, printed in Dillenz, ÖSGRUM 3, 69, quoted in in Anderl in Kucsko, copyright, (2008) [231]
  31. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law, (2008) [231f and 575f]
  32. See OGH legal sentence, legal sentence number RS0076899, GZ 4Ob317 / 60; 4Ob331 / 75; 4Ob80 / 98p; 4Ob124 / 07z; 4Ob83 / 08x Decision date April 26, 1960, standard UrhG §16 UrhG §42b Abs3 Z1 legal clause
  33. Author, publisher, etc.
  34. OGH document type legal sentence legal sentence number RS0076905 reference number 4Ob331 / 75 decision date 9th September 1975, standard UrhG §16 Abs1 UrhG §33 Abs2 legal sentence
  35. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law, (2008) [229]
  36. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law, (2008) [233]
  37. See e.g. B. Walter: Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, No. 1805
  38. General Civil Code
  39. According to Walter, Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, No. In 1744 and 1786, according to the prevailing opinion, they are considered a custom, according to Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [476], however, this opinion is controversial.
  40. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [476]
  41. See Walter, Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, no. 1805
  42. a b cf. on this Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright (2008) [526]
  43. ↑ Technical term for the transfer of claims by force of law. Through the cessio legalis mentioned here, the exploitation claims of the authors and those entitled to ancillary copyrights are transferred to the producer by law
  44. cf. on this, Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [529]
  45. cf. on this Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [527ff.] For the exception with regard to the legal remuneration claims according to § 38 / 1a cf. [532]
  46. cf. on this, Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [533]
  47. The implementation of the so-called Computer Directive : Council Directive 91/250 / EEC of May 14, 1991 AB | was decisive for the inclusion of the protection of computer programs as a work of language in Section 2, line 1 of the Copyright Act I. 122.42 of May 17, 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs. see. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Comment p. 145
  48. Lex specialis cf. Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [557f]
  49. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [557f]
  50. See Walter, Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, no. 228
  51. See Walter, Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, no. 228. In the above list, the reference to a long-term adverse effect on the existing protection was not included because this was prevented by the special legal regulation.
  52. cf. however Dillenz, Gutman: Praxiskommentar p. 145. In para. 3 he points out that it is not the form of expression of a work that is protected, but the work in the respective form of expression.
  53. § 40f / 1 ÖUrhG
  54. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Comment p. 156, no. 16
  55. a b cf. Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright (2008) [661]
  56. STG / 4
  57. ^ Walter Brugger : The school and university privilege (PDF; 19 kB) at www.profbrugger.at, requested on November 16, 2009
  58. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Comment . P. 162f. No. 5-13.
  59. OGH June 12, 2001, 4Ob 127 / 01G - media professor, as well as the brief discussion with seven other cases in Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [663f]
  60. Cf. Gutman, Daniel: Practical Commentary on Copyright, Austrian Copyright Act and Collecting Societies Act . 2nd, extended edition. Springer, Wien / New York 2004, pp. 163f, paragraphs 14-17
  61. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [663]
  62. ↑ If the legislature does not weigh up interests in conformity with the constitution, this would mean that the law or parts of the law are unconstitutional. Such a review falls within the remit of the Constitutional Court.
  63. Cf. on this: 1.) EXCURSION Constitutional Limits of Copyright in Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [659–672], in particular point 6. Result [671f]. 2.) Walter: Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, No. 950 denotes the underlying analogy in its generality as problematic. The fundamental right to freedom of expression is no justification for going beyond the existing regulations on the free use of works.
  64. § 61 UrhG as amended by Urh-Nov 2015
  65. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 255 para. 1
  66. See Walter Dillenz, Daniel Gutman: Practical Commentary on Copyright, Austrian Copyright Act and Collecting Societies Act. 2nd, extended edition, Springer, Vienna / New York 2004, pp. 265f. No. 5-8
  67. Cf. for example the property rights of §§ 77f (protection of letters and portraits) arising from the protection of personality, which are related to the provisions of unfair competition, property rights of §§ 79-80 (protection of messages, protection of the title of works of literature and art) with the Property rights of performing artists. (On the protection of privacy and unfair competition, see Dillenz, Gutman: Praxiskommentar p. 267, No. 12)
  68. a b c d e f g International Agreement on the Protection of Performing Artists, Manufacturers of Sound Carriers and Broadcasting Companies (Roman Performance Protection Agreement) of October 26, 1961. Ratified by Austria on February 12, 1973 and announced with Federal Law Gazette No. 413 / 1973 , last updated on May 21, 2008.
  69. ^ Signatory states on Wikibooks
  70. See Dillenz, Gutman: Praxiskommentar p. 266 para. 9
  71. a b cf. Walter: Austrian Copyright Part I, 2008, no. 1441
  72. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Comment p. 267, no. 11
  73. “The demand to grant the performing artist who reproduces a work of literature or the musical art a copyright to his performance cannot be fulfilled. The monopoly of the performance of performing artists, their mode of expression and their perception of the works they rendered, associated with the inclusion in copyright protection, would inhibit the development of the performing arts to an intolerable degree. ”Dillenz, ÖSGRUM 3, 267 No. 11
  74. a b cf. Anderl in Kuscsko, copyright (2008) [920f]
  75. a b c d cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Comment p. 267, no. 11 and 12
  76. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Commentary, p. 281 para. 7th
  77. See OGH September 12, 2001, 4 OB 15/000 k - Eurobike - ÖBI 2003, / 12 (39 Garnerth) = MR 2001, 389 both with images (Walter) = RdW 2002/20205 (217) = ZUM-RD 2002, 281; Quoted and taken from Anderl in Kucsko, copyrights (2008) [954, Amkg. 8th]
  78. See Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [954, point 3]
  79. See Section 74, Paragraphs 1 and 2 UrhG
  80. See the explanations in .Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [954f Z 3 and 957, Z.1]
  81. Details see § 75 UrhG
  82. See the explanations in .Anderl in Kucsko, copyright law (2008) [958f Z 2]
  83. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Praxiskommentar S. 285f para. 11
  84. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Commentary, p. 289 para. 6 and 7
  85. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Commentary, p. 292 para. 22 to 25
  86. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 295 para. 7th
  87. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 295 para. 11
  88. RL. 93/83 / EEC
  89. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 296 para. 1
  90. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Commentary, p. 297 para. 5
  91. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practice Commentary, p. 297 para. 6th
  92. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 298 para. 9
  93. See § 76c / 1 ÖUrhG
  94. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary p. 299 para. 4-6
  95. cf. on this, Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [995]
  96. cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Practical Commentary, p. 300 para. 7th
  97. Directive 96/9 / EC of March 11, 1996 on the legal protection of databases, AB | I. 77.20 of March 27, 1996: cf. Dillenz, Gutman: Praxiskommentar p. 298f., Marginal no. 1 and 2, as well as Anderl in Kucsko, copyright (2008) [610]