The next chapter in the "Mein Kampf" copyright dispute between a British publisher and the Bavarian government (see the earlier IPKat post here):German news media websites report (also here, here) that the Regional Court Munich on 25 January 2012 blocked the publication of a magazine containing annotated excerpts of Hitler's book "Mein Kampf". The Bavarian Finance Ministry, who owns the copyright in the book, had obtained a preliminary injunction (case reference: 7 O 1533/12) against this planned publication. The publisher, Mr McGee, had expected such a decision and thus decided to completely blur Hitler's original text in his magazine before sending it to the newsstands: basically "Hitler in the fog" (Hitler im Nebel) as a commentator writing for German news site n-tv.de observed. Interested readers can now only read the foreword by a historian and the annotated text but not Hitler's text, which has been blurred to such an extent that Hitler's text is completely illegible.
It appears - the news reports are a bit confusing - that Mr McGee believes that the injunction only prevents the sale of the magazine at newsagents so that he may still be able offer the "unblurred" magazine by mail order. This Kat could not verify whether this is indeed true but would be surprised if there was such a loophole. Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Söder, in the meantime was reportedly pleased with the decision. Mr McGee was disappointed since he believes that the broader public has a right to read Hitler's text which would help to demystify the book to be able understand the full horror of his ideas.To be continued.... I have no doubt.
'Mein Kampf' copyright dispute - "foggy" news
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Rating:
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[GuestPost] G1/24: Tuning in! A take on the state of proceedings before oral proceedings](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZhEivE5bp7QOwZsyZXAXbVNYSmLjUthkB2Q7fm1_dpB97u5lIQeyWT9ZadUTAH3Z-hXn13VpW4vBDRPx9emCnoDV6tbUTkyvfmqPv1nNInL8XMdrAtSZ2hcRQr2LjxKovC9wTk_XyZxQ0CtX1MUrO_Muz3OJ4ld8AftymsdUmKD7xNksYMwk6/s150/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] ‘Ghiblification’ and the Moral Wrongs of U.S. Copyright Law](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxl1BQBAW3Y-asjb1xXB9eA4DYy77fky6WgR-prC-_6DeBbDqOgCUDWyiz0Q3B23MWWAXnkbS2H2js7OUwA0JQXAHmsyVFgGIHeJz7zJ791vTzOD-4SJqWFIuywFXQyd3ahybbdZd4e8IEVfcNqctvyR8lumv_Gix6Tsw5cSvbHpTI1nwvztDuAQ/s150/IMG_2179.HEIC)
Posts
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html