GERMANY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Thomas Nägele, Steffen Henn, Anke Hofmann and Serpil Dilbaz, SZA Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz
Contrary to the opinion of the Regional Court of Ham - burg, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg recog - nised entitlement under Section 44b of the German Act on Copyright because the plaintiff’s reservation of use was not stored in machine-readable form. Thus, the exclusion in Section 44b Para. 3 second sen - tence of the German Act on Copyright did not apply. According to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, the respondent is therefore entitled to download the work under Sections 44b and 60d of the German Act on Copyright. Both courts expressly refrained from deciding whether the subsequent AI training constitutes a further (and potentially infringing) reproduction; this issue remains open.
157 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook