Who has the exclusive right to use a software that can prohibit third parties from a publicly accessible in any form and must be a case like especially no “pruning” of its software can (OLG Frankfurt, Urt. V. 27.01.2015 -. 11 U 94/13)
facts
The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had to decide a dispute over copyright claims because of a computer program. The applicant had a software developed and provided by the defendant available for use. It was about software for managing corporate data. During the period of cooperation, the defendant should be entitled to license the software in their own name to customers. However, the applicant announced to the summer of 2011 the cooperation. The defendant took advantage of further software. She claimed initially that copyright protection does not exists because the original authorship is not achieved. The software would be a significant proportion of inputs Third, since modules have been used by other manufacturers. The applicant evaluated the course different. They threw themselves in front of the defendant to have made or distributed the software of the applicant to the public. The only stand by the applicant itself. Furthermore, the defendant had the exclusive right of use of the applicant violated because they have worked or decompile the Software. This denied the defendant. Your customers would run the software only in sealed-off environments. From a decompilation also could not speak.
Results
The copyright protection for computer programs is recognized by law. §§ 69a – 69g of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act) contain special provisions for computer programs. § 69e treated example, decompilation of computer programs. Copyright protection enjoys a software but only if they – as is generally provided in the Copyright Act -. Reached level of creativity
original authorship
Computer programs can basically an intellectual his creation. An intrinsically creative design could be in the encoding of the source code here does not exclude, the OLG. In the controversial software if it were also a developed over time complex program with a considerable market value. From a defenseless made simple and routine programming service that would provide the same or similar manner every programmer can not be expected here. In brief urges the Court of Appeal this out in his third principle: “With complex computer programs is a presumption of sufficient individuality of the program design.”
publicly accessible and decompilation
The copyright accompanied the exclusive right of use is. And this stand by the applicant. It includes the right to edit. The defendant had only the right to provide their customers with the program. This right but ended together with the co-operation. After the defendant had infringed the applicant’s rights by the edited program or decompiled, spread and made publicly available on the Internet. The OLG resulting from:
“The determination of the District Court, the product will be made publicly available by the defendant, by been available via the website of the defendant or on their YouTube channel for anyone it was, also does not preclude that a publication of the source or object code was hereof excludes. Although not is the graphical user interface, the computer program itself again. But making available only assumes that third parties access is opened to the relevant protected work. “
In addition, the defendant had placed the program on its website as a demo version with full use of widely available. Such was the OLG the conditions of a public making available than meets at
In addition, had the defendant removed well before “privacy reasons” a “spy function” . – apparently meant was Google Analytics. This editor told her not granted from above also reasons.
Conclusion
Only the one to whom has the exclusive right to use a software, you must compile, spreading etc. Exceptions to are regulated in §§ 69a et seq. UrhG. In our case, however, handle any of the derogations. The applicant did not transfer the right to the defendant. At least not without restrictions during their collaboration, and certainly not beyond the cooperation.
By the way, the court treated nor a compensation claim by one of the programmers involved. Ajinomoto holds in his last motto of: “Inadequate low compensation agreement is not ineffective, but possibly triggers a right to consent pursuant to an amendment agreement. § 32 para. 3 of the Copyright Act of. “
This means that even if too low a fee has been agreed, the agreement that’s not off the table, and the programmer is going away empty-handed. He may have a right to the usual equitable remuneration.
No comments:
Post a Comment