Copy­right: remu­ne­ra­ti­on for pho­to­graphs of free­lan­ce jour­na­lists

The appro­pria­te remu­ne­ra­ti­on of aut­hors within the mea­ning of Sec­tion 32 UrhG is dis­cus­sed and dis­pu­ted time and again. Ano­ther decis­i­on of the Fede­ral Court of Jus­ti­ce, in this case with regard to pho­to­graphs, is likely to be rele­vant for the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of the law. The fol­lo­wing artic­le deals with the basic points of the decis­i­on of the jud­ges from Karls­ru­he:
1. the “Com­mon Com­pen­sa­ti­on Regu­la­ti­ons for Free­lan­ce Full-time Jour­na­lists at Dai­ly News­pa­pers of Febru­ary 1, 2010” shall also con­sti­tu­te a basis for deter­mi­ning the reasonable com­pen­sa­ti­on owed to a free­lan­ce jour­na­list pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 32 UrhG for the peri­od pri­or to their ent­ry into force.
2. on the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the joint com­pen­sa­ti­on regu­la­ti­ons for free­lan­ce full-time jour­na­lists at dai­ly news­pa­pers of Febru­ary 1, 2010.
3. the “Coll­ec­ti­ve Agree­ment for Employee-Like Free­lan­ce Jour­na­lists” may be used as a basis for esti­mat­ing a reasonable fee for pho­to­graphs published in a fac­tu­al news­pa­per, even if the pho­to­grapher did not work as an employee-like jour­na­list but as a free­lan­ce jour­na­list.


1. the appli­ca­ti­on of the Com­mon Com­pen­sa­ti­on Rules for Free­lan­ce Full-time Jour­na­lists at Dai­ly News­pa­pers does not requi­re pro­of of full-time work only for dai­ly news­pa­per publishers. Ins­tead, it is suf­fi­ci­ent to pre­sent a press card, even if the journalist’s main pro­fes­sio­nal acti­vi­ty extends to publi­ca­ti­ons in other media.(para.21)
(2) The appli­ca­ble rate of the Com­mon Com­pen­sa­ti­on Rules for Free­lan­ce Full-Time Jour­na­lists at Dai­ly News­pa­pers shall be deter­mi­ned by whe­ther the jour­na­list has gran­ted a publisher an exclu­si­ve or a simp­le right of use (first prin­ting right or second prin­ting right).(para.22)
3. in case of doubt, the news­pa­per publisher recei­ves only a simp­le right of use from free­lan­ce jour­na­lists, sin­ce accor­ding to the appli­ca­ble pur­po­se trans­fer rule of the § 31 para. 5 UrhG the aut­hor trans­fers to the user only as many rights as neces­sa­ry to achie­ve the pur­po­se of the con­tract.(para.22)
The cal­cu­la­ti­on of the fee shall be based on the cir­cu­la­ti­on of the par­ti­al issues of the dai­ly news­pa­per in which the journalist’s con­tri­bu­ti­ons appeared.(para.25)
(5) If con­tri­bu­ti­ons have appeared in seve­ral regio­nal edi­ti­ons of the dai­ly news­pa­per, the respec­ti­ve cir­cu­la­ti­on figu­res of the­se par­ti­al edi­ti­ons shall be added tog­e­ther for the pur­po­ses of remu­ne­ra­ti­on. In the­se cases, a sepa­ra­te fee for each of the par­ti­al issues can­not be reques­ted.(para.26)
(6) For the esti­ma­ti­on of a reasonable fee for the publi­ca­ti­on of pho­to­graphs in a dai­ly news­pa­per, the coll­ec­ti­ve agree­ment for qua­si-employee free­lan­ce jour­na­lists may be used as a basis for esti­ma­ti­on, even if the clai­mant is not a qua­si-employee free­lan­ce jour­na­list but a com­ple­te­ly free­lan­ce jour­na­list.(para.2)

GDPR Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner