Cologne Higher Regional Court awards director's heirs claims for damages against DVD distributor.
In a judgement handed down on 9 January 2009 (Case No. 6 U 86/08), the 6th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court (OLG), which is responsible for copyright issues, awarded the son of the director Harald Reinl, who died in 1986, claims for damages against a DVD distributor who offers and distributes films directed by Reinl on corresponding DVDs. The amount of the claims has not yet been determined.
The director Harald Reinl, who died in 1986, became known in particular for his Edgar Wallace and Karl May film adaptations in the 1960s. The present proceedings concern the digital video exploitation rights to thirteen feature films made between 1957 and 1965 (the Heimatkomödie "Almenrausch und Edelweiß", the six "Edgar Wallace" films "Der Frosch mit der Maske", "Die Bande des Schreckens", "Der Fälscher von London", "Der Würger von Schloss Blackmoor", "Zimmer 13" and "Der unheimliche Mönch", the two films "Im Stahlnetz des Dr. Mabuse" and "The Invisible Claws of Dr. Mabuse" as well as the four "Karl May" films "Treasure in Silver Lake" and "Winnetou I" to "Winnetou III"), each of which Reinl directed. The Constantin-Filmverleih GmbH was usually responsible for the theatrical exploitation of the films. Reinl's son and heir accuses the DVD distributor of copyright infringement because his father was the author of all thirteen films and had not granted anyone the corresponding video usage rights. Accordingly, he has sued for a declaration of his liability for damages, information and accounting.
In the lawsuit, the DVD distributor argued in particular that the deceased director had held all rights to the films in his contracts with Constantin, also in relation to types of use that were unknown at the time, such as video and DVD exploitation.
The 6th Civil Senate awarded the director's heir a copyright claim for damages in principle - as did the Cologne Regional Court in the previous instance.
The DVD exploitation of the films infringed the exclusive right of reproduction and distribution of the films which, according to the Copyright Act, belonged to the director and which he had inherited to his son. The so-called video secondary exploitation was a type of exploitation of cinematographic films that was completely unknown until 1965; this type of exploitation had only become apparent in the 1970s. The DVD distributor was unable to prove that the director, when transferring the copyright and exploitation right at that time, had also transferred the video exploitation right, which was unknown at that time, so that this would have to be remunerated to the heir today. According to the law in force at the time, the idea had prevailed that even in the case of an unrestricted transfer of copyright, the exploitation of new reproduction technologies that were not known at the time of the transfer of rights should remain reserved for the creator of the work. Since the exploitation contracts concluded with the director Reinl at the time could no longer be produced in the trial, the Senate could not establish that something else had been agreed here with regard to unknown rights of use.
The Senate allowed the appeal against its judgement because, among other things, the question of which principles govern the transfer of rights for not yet known exploitation possibilities of cinematographic works in old contracts before 1966 was of fundamental importance.
Source: Press release of the Cologne Higher Regional Court of 9 January 2009
Goldberg Attorneys at Law
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
E-mail: m.ullrich@goldberg.de
