“Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany.”
For German internet users, many a visit to YouTube ends in frustration. But why?
For years, German YouTube users have often been presented with a terse notice that the desired video is not available.Google, as the owner and operator of YouTube, on the one hand, and GEMA, as the collecting society, on the other, simply could not agree on how much to pay per song played on the Internet.
Records explain that Google wants to pay much less than GEMA would recognize as fair. On Friday the 20th April 2012, the Hamburg Regional Court ruled that the Internet portal YouTube may no longer put videos online for which GEMA, as the collecting society, claims copyright. In seven out of twelve cases, the court followed GEMA’s request.
Specifically, the GEMA demands from YouTube that the platform operator check before publishing a video whether the clip contains music subject to licensing. YouTube categorically rejects this – it is not technically feasible. Every minute, YouTube users upload over 60 hours of videos. Users like to ignore the fact that there is a copyright law that cannot simply be undermined and that many artists do not want to do without remuneration.
The GEMA or YouTube Disputes are no news to us. Do you have any queries about this topic? Make sure to contact us.
Horak. Attorneys-at-law : Your supporters in all copyright, media and music law matters.
Going home from work is not automatically covered by life insurance
Federal Social Court of Kassel (Case B 2 U 9/19 R)
Sometimes life does not go as planned. The case we are reviewing with you today is unfortunately concerning the tragic car accident of Hannes Hanke.
Mr. Hanke used to work as a chemical worker in his hometown in Germany. One day, just like many others, leaves Mr. Hanke his workplace, leaves the machine running, doesn’t say goodbye to his colleagues and doesn’t log off at the working hours file record. He usually calls his wife before going home, but he doesn’t do that that day either. He gets into his car and goes on the usual and direct way home. In doing so, his car gets caught in oncoming traffic and Hannes Hanke suddenly loses his life in a car crush. His widow is now claiming survivor´s loss benefits from the statutory life insurance. However, the employers’ insurance association rejects her claims as the accident was according to the records on his way home and not at his actual working place.
Ms. Hanke decided then to go to court and let the judges at the Federal Social Court in Kassel decide.
The Tribunal Decision:
They took the following decision: An accident on the usual way home from work is not always covered by the statutory accident insurance. Rather, it must also be clear that the employee actually wants to drive home. This cannot be established in the present case. After a normal working day, it can be assumed that the employee does indeed want to go home. However, this does not apply to the completely atypical procedure that Mr. Hanke had on the day of his death.
So, Ms. Hanke unfortunately had not received her insurance benefits.
What do you think about this case? Do you have questions on German insurance law?
As a matter of fact, masks have slowly but drastically become an ornament to our everyday life, just like shoes and clothes. Most countries of the world are changing rules in order to fight the corona global pandemic from spreading and infecting more people on a daily basis.
The World Health Organization and most Centres for Disease Control and Prevention recommend including face masks at public events and everywhere, where it is difficult to keep the required social distancing.
Masks come in a broad variety of styles and sizes and everybody own at least one.
However, not everybody is ready to use one, when needed.
This was the case of a couple of German students that definitely weren´t that happy to wear a mask in public!
The Case (Higher Administrative Court North Rhine-Westphalia AZ: 13 B 1368/20):
The two students wanted to be permanently exempted from the compulsory masks to be worn in the school building. For this reason, they submitted medical certificates to the school management. The certificates stated that from a health point of view, wearing an everyday mask all day is not to be recommended. Concentration, attention and the process of learning of the applicants would suffer.
The school management however, decided not to accept the certificates and refuses to exempt them from the mask obligation. The parents decided to bring the case before a judge in court.
The urgent application was rejected by the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia. The justification for refusal was that the submitted medical certificates did not meet the minimum requirements, since the general impairments listed there, could ultimately affect all students and not only these two one. Rather, the medical certificate must clearly and specifically state the health impairment individually for and only these two subjects and specifically explain which are the consequences of the mask on them. Possible relevant previous illnesses should for instance be mentioned. Besides it must be clear, on which basis the attesting physician came to this estimation and on which evidences he attested so. The decision is also not contestable.
Are you also living a situation that does not fit your expectations and you would like to clarify the problems you are facing?
as an international law firm, we are constantly in contact with the tribunal judiciary system in Germany and worldwide. Law is our passion and Law is what we want to talk about.
In this regard, we are glad to present you our new project:
Tribunal Decision – BWLH Reviews.
Our team is reviewing each week a significant actual tribunal decision and offering you the possibility to get to know our world better, step by step. Most of the decisions will come from the databases of the German Federal Supreme Court of Germany, Higher Administrative Courts, District Courts, Local Courts and so much more.
This opening week will be all about the main topic that has been shaking and trembling this year 2020 all around the world: the corona virus pandemic. While all around the world people are fighting against the virus, the economy of entire regions is seeing the crisis coming. Restrictions and new regulation can however not stop the economy completely. From schools to offices, everything is getting digitalized and the world goes on…line, from home. Smart working, zoom meetings, home office are the keywords of the future.
But not everybody likes to work from home.
This was the case of an over 60-year-old Berlin woman, that highly prefers her office instead of staying home.
The applicant is employed as an official inspector at a Berlin district office. At the end of March 2020, her employer ordered that she should work in home office until April 2020. The decision was necessary for health care reasons, as the employee is exposed to an increased risk of COVID-19 disease due to her age. She should be available for the office by telephone, and if necessary, she would be given work orders for home processing. Against this order, the applicant claimed that there was no legal basis for imposing home office work. The internal regulations merely provided that home office could be ordered upon application by the respective employee; however, she had not made such an application.
The Decision of the Tribunal:
The 28th Chamber however dismissed the urgent application, as this is just an exceptional situation acceptable due to corona pandemic
The applicant had to accept the organizational measure taken, at least for a limited period of time. The office inspector remains in her function and is neither pushed out of the service nor forced to inactivity for an unlimited period of time. According to the court, in the exceptional situation caused by the corona pandemic, it is acceptable that the employment conditions (as office etc.) are temporarily limited to mere on-call duty and that individual tasks are to be executed in home office.
An appeal against the decision can be lodged with the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg.
Order of the 28th Chamber of 14 April 2020 (VG 28 L 119/20)
What do you think about it? Are you living a similar case and you would like to talk to a lawyer about that? Get in touch with us.
We are delighted to inform you, that our law firm team has just welcomed new talented attorneys and office members! A warm welcome and lots of good wishes on becoming part of our growing team. Congratulations and on behalf of all the members. We are all happy and excited about your inputs and contribution to our company.