Ananova (quoting but not linking The Times) reports that a 200 yard section of the Berlin Wall is to be rebuilt, to ensure that the brutality of the Communist regime is not forgotten. This proposal has however provoked a fierce debate among Berliners about the limits of remembrance. Alexandra Hildebrandt, who runs the Checkpoint Charlie museum, knew that her idea would be controversial: while the city council will allow the wall to be built only as a temporary art exhibit, she wants to make it permanent, adding:
"For the young, the Berlin Wall is virtually forgotten. We are essentially creating a freedom memorial on a piece of land that was little more than a rubbish dump. I don't see the problem."
The IPKat wonders whether there is an issue in Germany of copyright infringement, as there may well be in the UK. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 4, the Berlin Wall would be a "building or a model for a building" which would attract death-plus-70 years copyright protection as an artistic work. The only issue would be whether the rebuilding of a mere 200 yard section of the 96-mile wall would count as the copying of a "substantial part" of the original wall for infringement purposes.

Other famous walls here, here and here
INTERESTING IDEA, BUT IS IT LEGAL? INTERESTING IDEA, BUT IS IT LEGAL? Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I don't think that there is much difference in principle between German and UK copyright law here. The Berne treaty requests Member States to protect works of architecture.

    However, I don't think that any German court would approve of protecting a copyright in the Berlin Wall. I have elaborated somewhat here:

    Karl-Friedrich Lenz


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.