On January 3, 2017, the Regional Court of Bielefeld ruled that a tweet via the microblogging service Twitter is not protected by Section 2 para. 1 no. 1 UrhG is a protected linguistic work. It lacked the required level of creation.
Twitter post printed on a postcard
A blogger published the following post on Twitter on 25.10.2014:
“When exactly did “Sex, Drugs & Rock n Roll” become “Lactose Intolerance, Veganism & Helene Fischer”?”
The defendant subsequently used this slogan on postcards produced by him and marketed them commercially. In his defense, he noted that the slogan had often been used before in a very similar form. In particular, the level of creativity required for a work was lacking.
No sufficient level of creativity for tweets
The Regional Court of Bielefeld did not uphold the blogger’s claim and dismissed the action. As the full text of the judgment – published on the website of the Sieling law firm – shows, according to the Regional Court, the level of creation (often also referred to as the level of design ) for a linguistic work protected by copyright is already lacking. This is because linguistic works are all personal intellectual creations whose content is expressed through language as a means of expression.
Length of the linguistic work as an indication
In principle, there is no minimum length requirement for a linguistic work. However, the brevity of a statement can be an indication against copyright protection.
“Short statements often do not offer enough creative leeway to achieve the necessary level of creativity for copyright protection.” (Bullinger in: Wandke/Bullinger, UrhG ” 2 para. 28, beck-online)
Comparison of tweets and slogans
Similar to advertising statements, tweets are also subject to strict copyright protection requirements. In the disputed tweet, a generally known slogan (“Sex, Drugs & Rock n Roll”) is used in everyday language in connection with everyday and current words.
In the opinion of the court, the associated linguistic wit was not sufficient to achieve the necessary level of design and justify copyright protection. The tweet was more like a slogan that was not protected by copyright.
The appeal against the decision was allowed.
Protectability of a Twitter stream and individual tweets
Even if tweets – according to the Bielefeld Regional Court – do not achieve a sufficient level of creativity in principle, the tweet can still enjoy copyright protection in individual cases. For example, excerpts from songs could very well reach the necessary level of creativity if they are part of a larger linguistic work.
Entire Twitter streams can also enjoy copyright protection. Although they are not linguistic works within the meaning of Section 2 para. 1 No. 1 UrhG, but possibly databases that are protected by copyright under Section 87a UrhG.
“Database within the meaning of this Act is a collection of works, data or other independent elements that are systematically or methodically arranged and individually accessible by electronic means or otherwise and whose acquisition, verification or presentation requires a substantial investment in terms of type or scope”
If a Twitter stream was not generated automatically and required sufficient time and money, it is subject to the protection of Section 87a UrhG.