Property trumps - Court prohibited film distribution

Portrayed in a lawsuit challenging the documentary Unlike U, part of the Berlin graffiti scene, recently dropped the judgment of the District Court of Berlin. It is prohibited because of unauthorized recordings in the LPP terrain distribution of the film - it is only indirectly concerned with what the film shows (illegal graffiti campaigns), but the main question is, instead, where each of these recordings were made. Because some images without permission to clear the Betriebsgelaende the LPP, as identifiable on two underground railway stations have been made, there is a judgment according to property infringement - through the camera. "... The films of a building and unauthorized use of the images[question] is a violation of property, when for the building of the grounds on which it is located, will be filmed, because theProperty may also be affected by it without being damaged, in the will of the owner contradictory way is being used "(quote from the judgment). Depending on type of the over DVD sales revenue now is the height of the damages can be calculated have. that the movie producers these images were acquired not even get it leaked, did not matter, because it could be deduced from the type of material that no permit from, and here a question of the distribution of the material going. to the right of ownership, in this according to a court case and the Press Law are not opposed, because the relevant film clips show nothing substantively new would - from the judgment: "... the representation of the offense in moving images to the viewer while aauthenticity of the special events conveys the associated gain in knowledge compared to, for example, is a verbal description of the procedures or the insertion of still photographs, however, rather low. The disputed sequence serves primarily to satisfy the curiosity of the audience gives him but no further information. "The defendant, it is noted that, was" It is neither forbidden to make a movie about graffiti in public transport and the dazugehoerige scene and the public present, yet to show pictures of painted subway trains. He can continue to use such recordings, if they originated in locations outside the property of the plaintiff. "The filmmakers see the injunction of the LPP is still regarded as attempting to exercise censorship(We reported), and to cancel at wanting to go to appeal. Due to the decision they make the movie but not on the site for disposal. From this particular case aside, should the position of documentary makers are generally not in the judgment just strengthened. The right of the image of their own building (if made on the area itself) is therefore the same procedure, at least, arises when there is no clear knowledge gained through the images. Conceivable that this argument will be tried in the future could to stop the spread of so many critical documentary, the filmmakers have to argue in court that is propagated over whether the contents of a