We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 356

CJEU renders next landmark decision - this time on free Wi-Fi
  • Hogan Lovells
  • European Union, Germany
  • September 20 2016

So far, September has been a busy month in Luxembourg. On 8 September 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a


German court decides that the split of online music copyrights is invalid
  • Bird & Bird
  • Germany
  • December 14 2009

The Regional Court of Munich has decided that the music industry’s common practice of splitting online rights conflicts with German copyright law


Hotel operators must pay for TV programs
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • Germany
  • October 7 2011

The Higher Regional Court of Munich confirmed in a decision that has now become legally binding (Decision dated 30 June 2011 file no.: 6 Sch 1409 WG) that hotel operators are obligated by law to pay appropriate remuneration to private broadcasting companies for the use of TV and radio programs


Host of German version of the TV show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” wins legal battle for the right to use his picture
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • Germany
  • September 25 2009

Günther Jauch, the host of the German version of the famous TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", fought a battle through the instances that found a positive ending for him before the German Federal Court of Justice in March of this year, with the full decision published only recently (I ZR 807


Regional Court of Hamburg decides that online TV service Zattoo is illegal without right holders’ consent collecting societies’ and broadcasters’ consent is irrelevant
  • Bird & Bird
  • Germany
  • December 14 2009

In a dispute between film studios Warner and Universal against the German offering zattoo.de of online TV service Zattoo, the Regional Court Hamburg decided on 8 April 2009 (ref. no. 308 O 66008) that zattoo.de must not retransmit TV content without the consent of the original right holders


Peer to peer (P2P) legislation
  • Abril Abogados
  • Canada, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom, USA
  • December 13 2012

Since 2006, when the first European Regulation against illegal downloading was enacted by Finland, most of EU Member States have followed the example


Federal Court of Justice: GEMA not competent to grant licenses for use of music in advertising
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • Germany
  • January 27 2010

The German Federal Court of Justice decided in a decision of June 10, 2009 (file no. I ZR 22606, published with full opinion only November 30, 2009), that the German collecting society for musical rights, GEMA, is currently not competent to license rights of its members regarding the use of musical works in advertising


James Bond fails to keep Dr No captive
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • European Union, Germany
  • July 3 2009

There was good news for international super villains across the world recently as one of their number, Dr No, saw the rights to his name released from the clutches of James Bond and awarded to a German media group


“Third Basket”: German Federal Ministry of Justice is examining the need for further amendments to German copyright law
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • Germany
  • September 25 2009

During the legislative proceedings for the Second Act on Copyright Law in the Information Society the so-called "Second Basket" which has been in force since January 1, 2008, many interest groups and lobbyists insisted that the legislator should timely attend to the preparation of a "Third Basket"


ECJ confirms a broad interpretation of "extraction" from a protected database
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • European Union, Germany
  • October 10 2008

The ECJ's decision in Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Case C-30407, 9 October 2008) confirms that, for the purposes of infringement, "extraction" of data from a protected database should be interpreted broadly and can include transfers made after individual assessment of the data by the user