Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Thomas Dreier, GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?, 2 (2011) JIPITEC 152 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits? %A Dreier, Thomas %J JIPITEC %D 2011 %V 2 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F dreier2011 %X In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right. %L 340 %K Filming of amateur soccer games %K photographing private property from private grounds %K property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property %K scope of the domiciliary right %K slavish imitation %K taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services %K unfair competition law %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910 %P 152-157Download
Bibtex
@Article{dreier2011,
author = "Dreier, Thomas",
title = "GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2011",
volume = "2",
number = "2",
pages = "152--157",
keywords = "Filming of amateur soccer games; photographing private property from private grounds; property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property; scope of the domiciliary right; slavish imitation; taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services; unfair competition law",
abstract = "In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else's physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its ``Hartplatzhelden.de'' decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its ``Prussian gardens and parks'' decision, held that photographing someone else's property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner's property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted -- and unjustified -- extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new ``organizer's'' IP right.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Dreier, Thomas PY - 2011 DA - 2011// TI - GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits? JO - JIPITEC SP - 152 EP - 157 VL - 2 IS - 2 KW - Filming of amateur soccer games KW - photographing private property from private grounds KW - property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property KW - scope of the domiciliary right KW - slavish imitation KW - taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services KW - unfair competition law AB - In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910 ID - dreier2011 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>dreier2011</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2011</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>2</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910</b:Url> <b:Pages>152-157</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Dreier</b:Last><b:First>Thomas</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?</b:Title> <b:Comments>In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Dreier, T TI GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits? SO JIPITEC PY 2011 BP 152 EP 157 VL 2 IS 2 DE Filming of amateur soccer games; photographing private property from private grounds; property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property; scope of the domiciliary right; slavish imitation; taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services; unfair competition law AB In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Dreier</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Thomas</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Filming of amateur soccer games</topic>
<topic>photographing private property from private grounds</topic>
<topic>property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property</topic>
<topic>scope of the domiciliary right</topic>
<topic>slavish imitation</topic>
<topic>taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services</topic>
<topic>unfair competition law</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<date>2011</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>152</start>
<end>157</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">dreier2011</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 2 (2011) 2 |
|---|---|
| Title |
GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits? (eng) |
| Author | Thomas Dreier |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right. |
| Subject | Filming of amateur soccer games, photographing private property from private grounds, property right to the visual image of movable and immovable property, scope of the domiciliary right, slavish imitation, taking unfair advantage of the reputation of services, unfair competition law |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-30910 |
