NEWS

Berlin Court of Appeal (KG) decides on the copyright permissibility of framing and the limit of Section 50 of the German Copyright Law (press privilege)

KG Berlin judgment of 18.09.2023 - 24 U 110/22 - Framing in the context of current events permissible under copyright law (“Lindner photo”)

 Contents

What does framing mean?

Framing is a web design technique in which the content of a website is divided into several areas or “frames”. In this frame, another website’s content can be displayed via a clickable link. It is therefore a method of presenting links or links to external websites within your own website.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff is a photo agency that held the rights of use to the photos showing the FDP politician Christian Lindner. The photos in dispute dealt with a violation by Christian Lindner of the coronavirus rules in force at the time. These photos were published without permission on X (formerly Twitter) by a third party. The defendant, a public television station, used the photos on its website by framing them. The rights holder considered this type of integration (framing) to be a copyright infringement and filed an action for injunctive relief.

Decision of the KG Berlin

The KG Berlin dismissed the action as the actions of the public television broadcaster were permitted by the statutory limit of Section 50 of the German Copyright Act (reporting on current events). According to the judges, the framing was necessary, appropriate and proportionate, as the reporting concerned the corona rules in force at the time and any violations by politicians. The balancing of interests showed that freedom of expression and freedom of the press (Art. 5 (I) 1 and 2 German Constitution (GG)) took precedence, so that the exclusive right of communication to the public protected by the plaintiff under Art. 14 I GG had to take a back seat.

To the point

The framing of the public broadcaster was permissible here under the so-called press privilege Section 50 of the German Copyright Act (reporting on daily events, so-called press privilege). However, the judgment of the KG does not provide a practicable or generally applicable solution for the framing of links. However, there is a ray of hope: With the new Copyright Service Provider Act (UrhDaG), links by public broadcasters to content on platform X could become largely unobjectionable, provided that they are considered non-commercial.

MORE NEWS
AI

AI labelling under Article 50 of the EU AI Act: What applies from August 2026

The transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act apply from 2 August 2026. However, the Regulation does not establish a general labelling obligation for all AI-assisted content.
AI / Trademark Law

AI-driven trademark abuse: Why “register first, use later” is becoming riskier

AI tools make it easier to identify unprotected brand names. For businesses, this can quickly become costly on platforms such as Amazon.

Munich Regional Court I: Google must answer for false AI responses

Munich Regional Court I prohibited Google from further disseminating false statements from an “AI Overview”. The AI response was attributed to the search engine operator as its own statement.
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München