Higher Regional Court Cologne grants director's heirs claims for damages against DVD distributor.
In a judgment announced on January 9, 2009 (file reference 6 U 86/08), the 6th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court (OLG), responsible for copyright matters, granted the son of director Harald Reinl, who passed away 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.
Director Harald Reinl, who passed away in 1986, became particularly known for his Edgar Wallace and Karl May film adaptations in the 1960s. The present proceedings concern the digital video exploitation rights for thirteen feature films produced between 1957 and 1965 (the Heimatfilm “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 “Die unsichtbaren Krallen des Dr. Mabuse,” as well as the four “Karl May” films “Der Schatz im Silbersee” and “Winnetou I” to “Winnetou III”), all of which were directed by Reinl. The theatrical distribution of the films was generally handled by Constantin-Filmverleih GmbH. Reinl's son and heir accuses the DVD distributor of copyright infringements, claiming that his father was the author of all thirteen films and had not granted anyone corresponding video usage rights. Accordingly, he sued for a declaration of the distributor's liability for damages, disclosure, and accounting.
The DVD distributor argued in court, in particular, that the deceased director had disposed of all rights to the films in his contracts with Constantin, including those pertaining to then-unknown types of use such as video and DVD exploitation.
The 6th Civil Senate has granted the director's heir – as had the Regional Court Cologne in the previous instance – in principle, a copyright claim for damages.
The DVD exploitation of the films infringed the exclusive right of reproduction and distribution of the films, which, according to copyright law, belonged to the director and which he had bequeathed to his son. The so-called secondary video exploitation was a completely unknown type of use for cinema films until 1965; this type of exploitation only emerged in the 1970s of the last century. The DVD distributor could not prove that the director, at the time of transferring the copyright and exploitation rights, had also transferred the then-unknown video exploitation right, meaning that this must now be remunerated anew to the heir. According to the law then in force, the prevailing idea was that even with an unrestricted transfer of copyright, the exploitation of new reproduction technologies unknown at the time of the transfer of rights should remain reserved for the creator of the work. Since the exploitation contracts concluded with director Reinl at that time could no longer be presented in court, the Senate could not determine that anything different had been agreed upon regarding unknown usage rights.
The Senate allowed the appeal against its judgment because, among other things, the question of the principles governing the transfer of rights for previously unknown exploitation possibilities of film works in old contracts concluded before 1966 was deemed to be of fundamental importance.
Source: Press release of the Higher Regional Court Cologne of January 9, 2009
Goldberg Rechtsanwälte
Attorney Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
E-mail: m.ullrich@goldberg.de
