In the first part I have looked into possible Entpixelungsansprüchen against Google.
In this second part I examine the question of whether the owner or owners can demand of each other any compensation.
conceivable in this context, two issues.
first the trade or business tenant sees its competitiveness by the owner caused pixelation limited.
second The owner considers the success of a future rental or a sale jeopardized or impaired.
It may well be said that the publication of the House view by Google, where appropriate, the use of the existing copyright law is. Moreover, could the ownership of the house owner to be affected. § 59 UrhG however, expressly permits such use (to address the opposing view, see my article, but is 2.50 m but not freedom of panorama or?). Google may
the views so without the consent of the owner, lessee or architect for its Street View service use. Google admits, however, both owners and tenants the right one, to ask for pixelation Google, where Google will comply.
Since this is a voluntary (albeit on political pressure), granted, for which there is no legal claim basis, Google can pick and choose who it admits this possibility.
legally may therefore both tenants and owners of Google's offering, a building or a part thereof Pixelize to make use.
A damages claim for one or the other side can thus only arise because, where the law is applied fairly abusive. Here one can think of the limits of the prohibition of harassment § 226 BGB . Thereafter, the exercise of a right inadmissible if it can only have the purpose of causing other damage.
That would be in our case except constellation, such as when the tenant causes until shortly before moving out the pixelation to complicate the owner of the new tenant, or if the owner wants to move the tenant to terminate by disturbed by pixelation of the premises whose visibility, to force him out of business.
would in such cases a deliberate immoral damage gem. § 826 BGB as claims conditions into account. expected to quantify the damage, however, be extremely difficult. The owner can prove difficult, that he is an object because of the pixelation not rent or only later at a lower price could. Something simple, but the causality would be problematic though sales decline of a retail business in the second part to quantify than harm.
If not, the pixelation proven right in an abusive manner, compensation claims between owners and tenants, in my view come to the question.
In a third part, I am soon to the case that a competitor has to deal causing the pixelation.
On the issue of freedom of panorama at 2.50 m height from the recording Street View car, see here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment