Search results : 1399

In a ruling of 9 July 2015, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court - BGH) decided that, in principle, copyright is not infringed by a website operator who uses ‘framing’ to embed, in its own website, copyright-protected content that has been made accessible to the public on a third-party website with the copyright-holder’s consent (case no. I ZR 46/12 - Die Realität II). The plaintiff had commissioned a video entitled ‘Die Realität’, in which it advertised its products and for which it held the exclusive usage rights. According to the plaintiff, the video had been uploaded to the ‘YouTube’...

In a ruling of 30 June 2015 (ZI. Ro 2015/15/0015), which has now been published in full, the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court - VwGH) decided that notebook computers that can only receive streamed content from the Internet are not broadcast reception devices and are therefore not subject to the broadcasting licence fee. The court held that the legislator at the time of the adoption of the Bundesverfassungsgesetz vom 10. Juli 1974 über die Sicherung der Unabhängigkeit des Rundfunks (Federal Constitutional Act of 10 July 1974 on guaranteeing the independence of broadcasting -...

In a recently published decision of 9 March 2015 (case no. 7 B 14/1605), the Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Administrative Court - BayVGH) ruled that the repeated appearance of a logo during a television programme constituted illegal surreptitious advertising. The case concerned the broadcast of the programme ‘Learn from the Pros’ by TV channel Sport1, in which professional poker players give tips and tricks for the card game. As well as a standard sponsor reference at the start of the programme, the logo of the provider Fulltiltpoker.net was visible in virtually every shot, including...

In the dispute over the cable feed-in fee between the public service broadcasters and a cable network operator, the BGH (Federal Supreme Court) referred two pending cases back to the appeal courts on 16 June 2015 (case nos. KZR 83/13 and KZR 3/14). The public service channels are subject to the so-called must-carry rule of Article 52 of the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (Inter-State Broadcasting Agreement - RStV), under which all cable network operators are obliged to carry the programme signals of the public service broadcasters. However, the RStV does not contain any rules on the fees that cable network...

According to media reports, the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Administrative Court - VG Hamburg) decided on 29 April 2015, in case no. 17 K 1672/13, that the “must-carry” obligation of cable network operators under Articles 50 et seq. of the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (Inter-State Broadcasting Agreement) does not mean that programmes must be carried free of charge. It therefore granted an auxiliary request brought by the cable network operators. The dispute concerns the cost of carrying public service channels via the cable networks. Under the so-called “must-carry” rules laid down by the relevant...