The starting point of a legal dispute decided by the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg was the following facts: A journalist had been supplying texts and images to a local newspaper for publication since 2004. From 2014 to 2016, she worked in the newspaper’s office on a 450-euro basis, where she carried out typical secretarial and assistant tasks. In 2016, she began a distance learning course to become a journalist.
For the text reports that the woman wrote during this time, she received remuneration from the newspaper of € 0.14 per line for texts and € 5.00 for photos. However, the journalist was of the opinion that she was entitled to “reasonable remuneration” in excess of these amounts for the more than 1,000 articles and photos supplied. She based this on Sections 32 and 36 UrhG, which refer to the Joint Remuneration Rules for Freelance Full-time Journalists at Daily Newspapers (“GVR Daily Newspapers”).
Allegedly no full-time journalistic activity and lack of contribution quality
The local newspaper rejected the woman’s claims. The articles often lacked a certain “qualitative momentum”. In many cases, the articles merely consisted of names and sports results or captions of a few lines. Such texts were not subject to copyright protection.
Furthermore, according to the local newspaper, the woman lacked the status of a full-time journalist required for remuneration under the Copyright Act and the GVR daily newspapers. After all, she had worked in the newspaper’s office on a part-time basis alongside her editorial work. She also lacked specific journalistic training.
OLG Nuremberg affirms copyright protection of local newspaper articles
In a ruling dated December 29, 2020 (case no. 3 U 761/20), the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court agreed with the plaintiff’s argumentation and affirmed appropriate remuneration under the Copyright Act in the amount of the GVR daily newspapers.
It is true that copyright protection is not a matter of course for very simple reports on local events. However, the requirements for copyright protection are set rather low: only a minimum degree of “individual character” of the work in question is required. With a few exceptions, all of the works submitted by the journalist exhibited such a degree. This was because the texts did not merely announce events or pass on information without any editorial editing. The Senate was able to see this for itself.
The captions, which only briefly describe, classify and comment on photographs, would also reach the relevant “level of creation”. The individual character required for this is achieved by the fact that the plaintiff has captured situations and impressions of daily events that another person may consider insignificant. Furthermore, the formulations are not limited to a sober description of the picture contents and scenes, but rather take up the feelings of the depicted event or the viewer.
Judges take on full-time work as journalists
The Nuremberg judges also agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments with regard to her status as a full-time journalist. In view of the material supplied (more than 1,000 texts and images) and the small amount of office work, there were no indications that other activities of a professional nature existed to an equally important extent.
There is also no indication in the GVR daily newspapers that this should only apply to people who have completed journalistic training in the form of a university degree or a traineeship. The press card issued to her and her membership of the artists’ social security fund would also indicate that she is a full-time journalist.
Appropriate additional remuneration in accordance with the GVR daily newspapers: Over € 60,000 plus interest
Based on all of these considerations, the judges ultimately ordered the daily newspaper to pay the plaintiff journalist additional remuneration. On the basis of Sections 32, 36 UrhG and the GVR daily newspapers, additional remuneration of over € 60,000 plus interest is now due for the works submitted over the years.
For freelance journalists, it may well be worth taking a closer look at the content and scope of their own work. Even reports that contain a list of personal names or (sports) results, or very short texts, such as captions, can be protected by copyright and therefore require appropriate remuneration under the Copyright Act.