Case Scope:The infringement of the copyright in the case of Mr M and the use of photographs in different aspects from the catalogues consists with the breaching of copyrights laws in a variety of ways. However, since the intentional use was based on negligence and the concept that he paid for the photographs to be used in his own machines catalogue, the client M has acted based on his own negligence of the copyrights mentioned in the German law. Moreover, although the industrial photos have no copyrights law protecting it, the scope of use and the arrangement has been breached in the redistribution of the material in a method outside the context of the original agreement. Nevertheless, M and P hasn’t signed any contract that dictates on the exclusive use of the photographs for the catalogue solely and M has paid the fees that P has required out of Him.
Case Analysis:1. The act of negligence doesn’t protect the user M from the infringement he has done in reusing the photos since there is no distinguishing in law between wilful and innocent acts. Thus M is liable in using the photos in a different way from what he agreed on with P. moreover, there is a culpability on P in the same time for not infringing his copy rights of the solo distribution of his photographs for the catalogue strictly.
2. Liability of M is conditioned since he paid for the fees of P photographs and with the knowledge that it should be used for the catalogue and M didn’t obtain the right from P to publish or use his work outside the catalogue context. M circulated the photos of P without his consent to publish it in different aspects. As well as P3is liable for not being acknowledged on his authorization extent and for the lack of documentation of authorization rights.3. The liability of using the resources of P outside the original context is considered unauthorised and undertaking the reuse is originally conditioned to P and thus M exposed P’s work without either his consent or authorization and in this aspect only M is liable for the importation of the photographsGerman Law1. The object of the photograph is considered as an object of protection since the rights of property govern intangible property of assets of artistic materials such as photos. the creator of the photo is considered the owner and therefore automatically possess The copy rights.
2. The photographer possesses the absolute rights that can exclude other people from the reuse of his intellectual work as well as he only can indicate the right of use of his work.3. The rights of protection of the photographer are protected by the fact that a spiritual and personal aspect of his individualism was used in the expression of his creation4.
According to the German law of protection since there is no registered copy right of the photographs, the photographer is entitled for his copy rights for a short period and must attain a patency to oppose infringement5. The German law allows for joint ownership and entitlement of copyrights which indicates that in the case where the customer has paid the fee or added a small contribution, both become authors of the material and legal owners46. the photograph of the machines doesn’t have any kind of aesthetic excess which indicates that no copy rights govern the photographsCase SolutionIn the case of the interest conflict that occurred between M and O, there are no legal boundaries that can indicate that M was knowledgeable of breaching the copyrights of P. moreover, since the actions of M were based on negligence and P acted based on ignorance of his copyrights and intellectual property. M whom paid for the fees of P’s photographs can be considered as a joint owner and especially in the lack of any contract or agreement on the strict use of the photographs for the catalogue. M saw the pictures, was intrigued by a specific one which he decided to use within the same organization for different uses such as business cards etc.
Moreover, P has entitled M to use the photographs under the name of his company for marketing and advertising purposes, which designated M’s company as the single owner and distributor of these photos, in the absence of any written contract.With accordance to the copyrights entitlement under the German law, a compensation from M to P can be contributed as a license form. Nevertheless, the reimbursement was already paid in advance and M was entitled of using the photographs outside the context of the original agreement. Moreover, the German law doesn’t dictate any formulation or copyright law that govern the intellectual property of industrial photos.
The German copy right law foresees a compensation in form of a license fee. In case someone touches another person’s right without being entitled to do so, the other person might claim a reasonable remuneration. This illustrates that M has already gained his entitlement to the right of use of the photographs.
5However, since M’s actions were based on negligence and may coincide with the overall interest of his work and organization due to credibility and transparency, M can pay P a reasonable amount of compensation fees. The compensation fees can be considered as a courtesy from M towards P with the importance of highlighting that M hasn’t infringed or breached any copyrights law in any manner and according to German law he is as entitled as P for the ownership of the photographs copyrights.M has proved according to law that his actions weren’t only based on negligence but also proved to be a joint owner of the photographs ownership and that P’s allegations can be discarded since M is protected by the German Law and his actions are legal and justifiable.