Frage von Marc Schneider:
S.Euch Hello everyone,
I've got so much a matter of copyright, which I feel for a long time through my head.
When I create a video for customers (Industrie-/Image video), there is often the case that I get of the customer graphics, logos and photos, which I will incorporate into the video. I refer my clients to be (always verbally and it is synonymous in my Policies in them) out that I can only accept material that the customers have for the rights of use. In the Policies require the customer myself in case of a copyright infringement which may arise due to their materials shipped to liberate them.
My text in the Terms as follows:
8.The client bears sole responsibility for the content and legality of it explains the data transmitted and / or other information (including logos, graphics, Articles and the like) and, the contractor of all claims in connection with the for the client conducted productions to the contractor may be invoked, indemnify, and without complaint to make. Now the big wild card question: If a customer gives me a photo or graphic for which he does not own the rights (and me to conceal it or deny), who is going to be nailed in the event of any action on the cross? The customer, or I as an executive producer?
Another example: I recently purchased "Royalty-free stock footage" of a new young production company and now needs to determine that the videos were part s.Flughäfen and rotated in aircraft. They are synonymous, and aerial photographs of pilots and air crews, etc. available (Line Machine). Apart from the fact that the pictures are lousy, I can not imagine that this film permits were available, or the filmed persons / companies with a commercial evaluation of the material would agree. The production company but has also sent me a nice use license ....
Suppose I use clips from it for a full budget TV commercial and then a failure to call a major airline comes with a six-figure damages claim in Height. What happens then?
Gruss, Marc Schneider
Antwort von wolfgang:
So I'm not Justist, just beforehand.
But 2 points:
- Orally well enough in a process-nothing scenario even more, not synonymous, wenns is in the terms and conditions. What if you do that is there reinschreiben, and still conscious would make a violation of these rights? And the client will not say in such a case, probably, "Sure, he hats not know, I do not habs told him." Nee, sowas especially before I would have a commercial background, an extra sign that the client clearly holds that he has all rights s.dem material. Has he not fact, it winds itself with the signature ...
- If you have reasonable doubt, despite such a signature, or even have knowledge gained from the fact that the client has no copyright, you are probably still due when you handle the material. What you have written here in the posting, would probably have time to use any court against you - as a clear admission of guilt. Only one signature of the client probably will not take you off the hook, that you sometimes convince yourself within reason, synonymous to the validity of this statement.
If in doubt, it is always both inside, I guess. Therefore, I would always rather cautious in something.
Wiegesagt that is my assessment, I am not a lawyer.
;)
Antwort von Marc Schneider:
Hi Wolfgang. First of a thank you for the reply. I always give as an example that I can build any clients as a craftsman sockets in the bathtub. Even if the customer's specific requests.
Has often wanted to give me customer gemapflichtige Music. Here, it's still pretty easy to determine whether there are rights.
For graphics, I myself have often relied on the word of the customers and that disturbs me uneasy.
Gruss, Marc
Antwort von Voltz:
Thus one can not be left unchallenged.
Exactly exclude this liability is the sense of Freihalteklausel.
Whether a liability has been upheld against the Manufacturer of the video, synonymous when it acted only on behalf of the producer, is synonymous of from the other contractual provisions.
But I doubt if the Manufacturer has a legal obligation to check whether the material is passed to him for processing rechtefrei or not. For obvious questionable material will probably be sufficient if the Manufacturer gives a hint. I would recognize a duty to investigate is not in doubt.
My practical tip about this problem:
The rights kept free due to special circumstances involving addition to the individual agreement of the actual contract.
If the Conditions for any reason as a whole (should) be invalid, the indemnity given.
Otherwise, I recommend you to invest time on this subject area a few hundred euros and can advise you on an experienced lawyer. If this is your profession, I would not be here to save s.der wrong place! If your car is broken, but you could probably ask synonymous rather have a car mechanic and not the pizza maker who happens synonymous like driving.
Dangerous is appropriated, namely, the half-knowledge, which is spread through Internet forums. Best example is the repeated reference to happy to use the OLG Hamm relating to "Links to Third Party Sites", which is understood to be tens of thousands Impressi site or Service will take - and which is not read again and again and taken over completely wrong!
Antwort von Nightfly!:
Not my voice as a lawyer to speakers.
Such as in your web page, which are references to other Web sites, you will not be responsible for the content of other pages, if you explicitly indicates.
For logos or sound, I would explicitly in the contract annexed to this customer supplied raw materials to point, and then explain it to me in the contract formulated to protect against a compulsory examination of this material.
Greeting
Nightfly.
PS: Keep In an emergency abchecken briefly to the solicitor in this respect contracts. (Hedging) by professional
Antwort von Voltz:
Such as in your web page, which are references to other Web sites, you will not be responsible for the content of other pages, if you explicitly indicates.
Exactly when, however, is often the problem. The OLG Hamm has said in its ruling that it just
is not enough to distance himself flat of the contents of the linked website.
Correctly the site owner will then formulate its disclaimer to the effect that any responsibility for the content of external links does, unless any illegal content and links to external sites with illegal content are known to him, and intentionally or with gross negligence is not removed immediately. In particular, is a prerequisite for liability that the website operator distances of illegal content and links is technically possible and reasonable.
Antwort von wolfgang:
Thus one can not be left unchallenged.
Exactly exclude this liability is the sense of Freihalteklausel.
Whether a liability has been upheld against the Manufacturer of the video, synonymous when it acted only on behalf of the producer, is synonymous of from the other contractual provisions.
So ideally, we make contracts with people who sit in critical cases halt somewhere in the far abroad - and then shake themselves of any responsibility.
Whether one with such a "Freihalteklausel" get through, I'm very skeptical views. This could be of a court in an emergency means designed to circumvent trial. I produce a video, but whoever else is responsible? Would be very nice ...
But I agreed, that you should ideally consult a specialist lawyer.
Antwort von Voltz:
No, Wolfgang. The point is that you then have to ask those which
meet the relevant copyright facts. And this is not the Manufacturer, but the one who works with the public's s.The. Only s.diesem moment he needs adequate rights.
Antwort von Chrille1:
Hello Marc, I'm currently in a similar situation. Were you able to answer your questions then see how far you stick a "Manufacturer" for the contents of the client?
Many greetings and thanks in advance,
Christian
