User:Pajz/a

Germany

/ Inconclusive. It is consensus in the literature that photographic reproductions of two-dimensional works do not qualify as copyrightable works in terms of § 2 UrhG (Lichtbildwerke); however, the ancillary copyright provision of § 72 UrhG awards protection as Lichtbilder to “photographs and products which are made in a similar way to photographs” (note that there is no difference in scope, only in the duration of protection). This implies that in practice, almost every photograph is protected, either by § 72 UrhG or by § 2 UrhG. A notable exception to this is reproduction photography. The Federal Court of Justice held in 1989 that photocopies of copper printing plates are even below the threshold required for § 72 UrhG because even to qualify as Lichtbilder, photographs need to be personal intellectual products (though unlike their § 2 counterparts, they do not need to be creative or original) („[…] so kann jedenfalls auf ein Mindestmaß an – zwar nicht schöpferischer, aber doch – persönlicher geistiger Leistung nicht verzichtet werden”).

It is since assumed that the mechanical reproduction two-dimensional works through photocopying, scanning, microcopying or electrostatic copying does not trigger any protection of that reproduction.

However, the vast majority of legal scholars does not go so far as to also apply this to “ordinary” photographs (as taken with a portable camera) of two-dimensional works such as paintings.