lizenzvertrag-urhg

/urheber-medienrecht:lizenzvertrag-urhg

Purpose

The skill reviews and drafts copyright license agreements with a focus on precise grant of rights of use (§§ 31–37 UrhG), the doctrine of purpose transfer (§ 31(5) UrhG) and appropriate remuneration (§§ 32, 32a, 32d UrhG). It covers total buy-out, publishing and film production agreements, standard terms review of standard clauses, rights of revocation (§§ 40, 41, 42 UrhG) as well as the UrhDaG interface for online platform licenses.

Inputs

Type of agreement (license agreement, publishing agreement, film production agreement, total buy-out, GbR accession)
Contracting parties (author/rights holder – exploiter)
Work(s), if applicable future works (§ 40 UrhG)
Intended rights of use (simple/exclusive; territorial/temporal/subject-matter)
Remuneration model (one-off lump sum / per-unit license / revenue share / hybrid)
Contract style: first draft or review of a submitted third-party draft
For film production: include § 89 UrhG presumption of the film producer
For publishing: VerlG obligations

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher supplies §§ 31–43 UrhG, §§ 88–94 UrhG (film law), VerlG as well as BGH I. ZS case law on purpose transfer (“Talking to Addison”, “Das Boot II”) and appropriate remuneration (“GVR Tageszeitungen”). Drafter prepares the contract draft or the clause annotations with standard terms review. Reviewer checks purpose transfer, § 32 appropriateness, § 32a bestseller clause and § 32d duty to provide information — all three mandatory.

Procedure

1. Power of disposal and standing to sue

Original author § 7 UrhG — power of disposal exists.
Joint authors § 8 UrhG — joint disposal, each may seek injunctive relief alone.
Employment/service relationship § 43 UrhG — implied grant of the rights required for the business purpose (rule of interpretation; residual doubts in favor of the author).
For commissioned works: the expressly agreed scope of transfer is decisive.

2. Grant of rights of use §§ 31–37 UrhG

Simple right of use § 31(1) UrhG (concurrent use by other licensees and the author).
Exclusive right of use § 31(3) UrhG (exclusion of third parties, if applicable also exclusion of third parties vis-à-vis the author himself, insofar as contractually agreed).
Territorial, temporal, subject-matter restriction § 31(1) sentence 2 UrhG permissible.
Right of sublicensing § 35 UrhG (only with the author's consent).
Rights to unknown types of use § 31a UrhG (written form, right of revocation within 3 months of notification).
§ 32c UrhG: in the event of later inclusion of a type of use unknown at the time of contract conclusion, separate claim to remuneration.

3. Purpose-transfer rule § 31(5) UrhG

Rule of interpretation in favor of the author: In case of doubt, only the rights of use required by the purpose of the contract are granted. Blanket clauses ("all rights comprehensively") must be interpreted restrictively in light of the purpose of the contract (German Federal Court of Justice "Talking to Addison", judgment of 07.10.2009 – I ZR 38/07, BGHZ 182, 337, dejure.org – the decision applies the doctrine of transfer by purpose within the framework of Sec. 32 of the German Copyright Act).

Consequence for contract drafting: list types of use enumeratively , not generically.

4. Adequate remuneration Secs. 32, 32a, 32d of the German Copyright Act

Sec. 32 of the German Copyright Act: claim to adequate remuneration. Standard: industry practice, individual negotiation, if applicable joint remuneration rules (Sec. 36 of the German Copyright Act, e.g. "GVR Tageszeitungen II", German Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 21.05.2015 – I ZR 39/14, GRUR 2016, 67, dejure.org). Advance waiver ineffective (Sec. 32 III 1 of the German Copyright Act). Action for adjustment permissible.
Sec. 32a of the German Copyright Act (bestseller remuneration / "fairness paragraph"): In case of a striking disproportion between the agreed consideration and the revenues from the exploitation of the work, a claim for adjustment even without foreseeability. Mandatory law, waiver ineffective (Sec. 32a III of the German Copyright Act). Standard as a rule "striking disproportion" from twice the adequate remuneration (German Federal Court of Justice "Das Boot II", judgment of 20.02.2020 – I ZR 176/18, GRUR 2020, 611, dejure.org).
Sec. 32d of the German Copyright Act (duty to provide information): The author has an annual claim to information about the extent of the exploitation of the work and the revenues generated therefrom — also vis-à-vis sublicensees (Sec. 32e of the German Copyright Act). Exceptions Sec. 32d II.

5. Standard terms and conditions review in the case of total buy-out

Blanket buy-out clauses (one-time lump sum for all rights of use unlimited in time, territory and content) are to be reviewed under Secs. 305 et seq. of the German Civil Code:

Sec. 307 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with the model of Sec. 32 of the German Copyright Act: unreasonable disadvantage in the case of evidently low lump sum.
Sec. 31 V of the German Copyright Act remains a rule of interpretation also in standard terms and conditions.
Consequence of invalidity: Sec. 306 of the German Civil Code — the contract remains otherwise effective, supplemented by the adequacy rule.

6. Contracts concerning future works Sec. 40 of the German Copyright Act

Written form (Sec. 40 I 1 of the German Copyright Act).
5-year right of termination of both parties (Sec. 40 I 2 of the German Copyright Act) — mandatory.
In the case of future works not specified in more detail: possibly immorality Sec. 138 of the German Civil Code in the case of enslavement.

7. Rights of revocation Secs. 41, 42 of the German Copyright Act

Sec. 41 of the German Copyright Act (non-exercise): The author may revoke an exclusive right of use if the exploiter does not exercise it or does so only inadequately. At the earliest 2 years after granting (or 1 year in the case of newspaper contributions). Setting of a subsequent deadline required.
Sec. 42 of the German Copyright Act (changed conviction): Revocation in the case of a sustainably changed personal conviction; obligation of the author to compensate.

8. Film law Secs. 88 et seq. of the German Copyright Act

Sec. 88 of the German Copyright Act: Rule of interpretation that upon conclusion of the contract for film production all film adaptation rights are granted to the film producer.
§ 89 UrhG: Presumption in favor of the film producer regarding exclusive rights of use.
§ 90 UrhG: Restriction of §§ 41, 42 UrhG for film works (no recall due to non-exercise for films; § 90 II UrhG block).
§ 92 UrhG: performing artists in the film.
§ 94 UrhG: independent related right of the film producer.

9. Publishing Law VerlG

Publisher has publishing obligation (§ 1 VerlG): reproduction and distribution.
Remuneration claim § 22 VerlG.
Right of recall for non-exercise § 32 VerlG.

10. UrhDaG interface for platform use

If the license covers public communication on major service providers within the meaning of § 2 UrhDaG, the obligations pursuant to §§ 1–10 UrhDaG must be taken into account (the platform itself owes the public communication, acquisition of licenses, complaint mechanism § 14 UrhDaG).

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

§ 31 UrhG (granting of rights of use)
§ 31a UrhG (unknown types of use)
§ 32 UrhG (adequate remuneration)
§ 32a UrhG (bestseller remuneration)
§ 32c UrhG (remuneration for later known type of use)
§ 32d UrhG (duty to provide information)
§ 32e UrhG (information against third parties)
§ 36 UrhG (joint remuneration rules)
§ 40 UrhG (contracts concerning future works)
§ 41 UrhG (right of recall for non-exercise)
§ 42 UrhG (right of recall for changed conviction)
§ 43 UrhG (employment/service relationships)
§§ 88–94 UrhG (film law)
VerlG (Publishing Act)
VGG (Collective Management Organisations Act)
§§ 305–310 BGB (standard terms and conditions control)
Art. 18 et seq. DSM Directive (EU) 2019/790 (adequate and proportionate remuneration)

Commentaries

Schulze, in: Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 7th ed. 2022, § 31 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 32 marginal no. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert]
Wandtke/Grunert, in: Wandtke/Bullinger, Praxiskommentar Urheberrecht, 6th ed. 2022, before §§ 31 et seq. UrhG [unverifiziert]
Schricker, in: Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 6th ed. 2020, before §§ 31 et seq. UrhG [unverifiziert]
BeckOK UrhG/Soppe, as of 2024, § 31 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 32 marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law

BGH, judgment of 22.09.2011 – I ZR 127/10, GRUR 2012, 496 – "Das Boot" (§ 32a UrhG, claim of the co-author), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 20.02.2020 – I ZR 176/18, GRUR 2020, 611 – "Das Boot II" (conspicuous disproportion, § 32a UrhG), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 21.05.2015 – I ZR 39/14, GRUR 2016, 67 – “GVR Tageszeitungen II” (joint remuneration rules), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 31.05.2012 – I ZR 73/10, BGHZ 193, 268 = GRUR 2012, 1031 – “Honorarbedingungen Freie Journalisten”, dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 17.10.2013 – I ZR 41/12, GRUR 2014, 556 – “Rechteeinräumung Synchronsprecher” (secs. 88, 89, 92 UrhG as rules of interpretation, no standard terms test), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 07.10.2009 – I ZR 38/07, BGHZ 182, 337 = GRUR 2009, 1148 – “Talking to Addison” (sec. 32 UrhG, translator’s remuneration), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 20.01.2011 – I ZR 19/09, GRUR 2011, 328 – “Destructive Emotions” (sec. 32 UrhG, translator’s remuneration), dejure.org
BGH, judgment of 10.05.2012 – I ZR 145/11 – “Fluch der Karibik” (additional remuneration for performing artists), dejure.org
ECJ on the appropriateness of remuneration under Art. 18 CDSM Directive — case law in the making [unverifiziert]

Output format

GUTACHTEN / VERTRAGSENTWURF — Lizenzvertrag UrhG
Werk(e): <…>     Parteien: <Urheber> – <Verwerter>

I. Sachverhalt / Vertragszweck
II. Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
     – Angemessene Vergütung: [ja / nachzubessern]
     – Zweckübertragungs-Lücken: [keine / Liste]

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Verfügungsbefugnis
    2. Nutzungsrechte (einfach/ausschl., räumlich/zeitlich/inhaltlich)
    3. Zweckübertragung § 31 V UrhG
    4. Vergütung §§ 32, 32a, 32d UrhG
    5. AGB-Kontrolle (bei Buy-Out)
    6. ggf. § 40 UrhG (künftige Werke), §§ 41, 42 (Rückruf)
    7. ggf. §§ 88 ff. UrhG (Film) bzw. VerlG (Verlag)
    8. ggf. UrhDaG-Schnittstelle

V. Vertragstext (Entwurf)
   § 1 Definitionen
   § 2 Werk
   § 3 Nutzungsrechtseinräumung
        (3.1) Art (einfach / ausschließlich)
        (3.2) Räumlicher Geltungsbereich
        (3.3) Zeitlicher Geltungsbereich
        (3.4) Inhaltliche Nutzungsarten (enumerativ!)
        (3.5) Untervergaberecht § 35 UrhG
        (3.6) Unbekannte Nutzungsarten § 31a UrhG (Schriftform, Widerruf)
   § 4 Vergütung
        (4.1) Höhe / Berechnung
        (4.2) Fälligkeit
        (4.3) Bestseller-Klausel § 32a UrhG (deklaratorisch)
        (4.4) Auskunftspflicht § 32d UrhG
   § 5 Urhebernennung § 13 UrhG
   § 6 Gewährleistung / Freistellung
   § 7 Vertragsdauer / Kündigung
   § 8 Rückruf §§ 41, 42 UrhG
   § 9 Schlussbestimmungen

VI. Risiken / offene Punkte
    🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VII. Quellenverzeichnis

Risks / typical mistakes

Total buy-out without appropriateness review sec. 32 UrhG → right of the author to adjustment, possibly invalidity of standard terms under sec. 307 BGB.
Purpose-of-transfer trap: Generic “all rights” clauses are construed restrictively in disputes — the exploiter loses rights that it considered agreed.
Sec. 32a clause as waiver structured — invalid, as mandatory law (sec. 32a III UrhG).
Sec. 32d duty to provide information ignored or excluded by contract — waiver invalid.
Sec. 40 UrhG 5-year deadline overlooked in “work pool” contracts with artists.
Sec. 31a UrhG written form and revocation not observed for unknown types of use.
Sec. 43 UrhG employment relationship: implied grant of rights overestimated — only related to the purpose of the business.
For film works: sec. 90 UrhG bar on rights of revocation overlooked.
For platform licences: UrhDaG obligations not reflected (the platform itself owes, not only the user).