if I completely finished film to sell, if I have enough on my website, on the DVD itself, etc. the copyright symbol on it, I must make the code somewhere to register?
I do not have music in my film!
Antwort von Pianist:
The copyright symbol has no meaning in Germany. According to German copyright law, you have a whole car all copyright rights therein, and do not need to make next, or somewhere register.
Matthias
Antwort von popaj:
Ah, yes ok thanks.
But how is that if you offer something and internationally many customers in America (for example)?
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
It is quite true that the sign for us in the UK has no significance. If you are what in America / elsewhere verscherbelst, then I would do it, because the Amis / sonstwer so accustomed else and think "hey, copyleft". It is international practice, his claim clearly marked. I would perhaps still in the guy a text passage in German and English put inside. Abroad, you know the German copyright law probably does not. With us is considered easier for the author synonymous nor the so-called "presumption of authorship." Someone claimed, the author of a work to be (for example, on which he has rediscovered a website), should the opposing side, the proof applies, that he is not the author. In the "stolen-photos-on-alien-site" cases, which is sometimes quite funny, if you look at the warning gets the answer "na proves to us yet." BG, Andreas
Antwort von Markus:
"Andreas_Kiel" wrote:
Someone claimed, the author of a work to be ...
... he can use the original recordings so prove. At least if the author was not too greedy and the tapes played back on has. ;-)
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
"Mark" wrote:
"Andreas_Kiel" wrote:
Someone claimed, the author of a work to be ...
... he can use the original recordings so prove. At least if the author was not too greedy and the tapes played back on has. ;-)
Since I was probably misleading words, there is therefore a Still Image on a website, and the photographer asks an illegal user, it is in favor of the photographer, the presumption that he was the author. Unlike in other parts of civil law, the photographer need not be the first proof of authorship, but the opposite side must deny and substantiated argument. Once in court, is the photographer of course, well advised to be negative if he / his original RAW file or what ever synonymous submit / can perform. Of course, you should always be material in the original version, plus the published version of archive - just for such cases. BG, Andreas
Antwort von smooth-appeal:
3x fee is for non-sensitive end of the dispute but much better than a picture in the normal way to get rid of ;-)
Antwort von popaj:
Hello and thank you.
Yes the guy is a good idea!
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
"smooth-Appeal wrote:
3x fee is for non-sensitive end of the dispute but much better than a picture in the normal way to get rid of ;-)
Pros same again for the lawyer is still better :-)))) vieeel three fee is controversial, and we always take twice: once fictitious license fee and then charge again because of illicitly used. The third award - the lack of copyright claim - let off, because as the courts decide differently. Zwiefach always wins in court. 680.00 euros for a Still Image is synonymous but still very nice, especially when the Still Image elsewhere for the amount not so easy to get published. But people are partly synonymous extremely stupid: the touch even the (C)-characters from the picture out and then say "yes, I have not seen gaaar. The best hit so far: a stolen scene claimed the lawyer of the opposite side: "copyright s.einer scene lies with the creator of the landscape." After all, on something you have to come first:-D BG, Andreas
Antwort von smooth-appeal:
And, God is reported? :-D
I already have several 3-fold fee received. Synonymous but that was never brought to justice. Apparently I shy people the unquestioned use my pictures so that they no longer dare to contact a lawyer because this is only higher costs for them could result in * g *
The most of the pictures somewhere else never achieve such fees would think I actually s.schönsten. The thief shoots himself in the foot and the Moneten we fall into the lap :-)
Ps regarding (c) rauseditieren - The sign must not appropriate to make one's rights. Or what did you mean now?
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
"smooth-Appeal wrote:
Ps regarding (c) rauseditieren - The sign must not appropriate to make one's rights. Or what did you mean now?
Nee, is not. But the objective was not to know rausreden (although nothing would have been used, but well ... nice try). Then we could show that at its Page images (bad) were retouched to the (C)-characters to remove. Very nice: the EXIF data, these actions were. What are the fees: I know someone who writes every time - if it is caught, then two-three times a year so - even a friendly, but certain letter. Since he calls 500,00 Euro and expects to what it costs, if ... Well, guess how many of perhaps 10 letters to 500,00 euro has gotten, and how often he s.seine favorite thing lawyers plan. I'll give you a hint: one of the two numbers is "zero". BG, Andreas
PS:
"smooth-Appeal wrote:
And, God is reported? :-D
His honors were s.diesem day not quite so good at it, so we want the Lord as a witness not invite ;-)
Antwort von smooth-appeal:
Yeah, I thought me the old once again expressed:-D
I already have my call-off enforced. That was against a rival newspaper. The knew exactly what they've built shit and have no paid Muck. The other times have to be ichs then let the website because it was an adolescent. They have usually already enough problems with the coal.
Otherwise, I am still not a case of theft struck. I surf a lot but not synonymous sites on foreign rum.
