[pgeorgi]

> In Germany, the concept of "Public Domain" does not exist. (EDIT: It may exist 70 years after the authors death). IANAL.

Works are "gemeinfrei" (approx. "public domain") 70 years after the author's death, or 70 years after publication for non-natural persons holding a copyright (e.g. corporate copyright).

What you might think of is that there's no official way for an author to release works into the public domain in Germany.

That, and the life+70 idea, comes from the personality rights angle that underlies German (and other European) copyright: Personality rights are protected for 70 years after death, probably under the assumption that everybody who cares deeply about a person (instead of being potentially offended in some abstract sense) is also gone by then. Works are considered an embodiment of the personality of their author, and so they receive the same kind of protection. Just as you can't give away your personality rights, you can't give away all rights to your work[1]. Their commercial value, while more important these days, played a secondary role in the creation of this concept.

In comparison, the Anglo-Saxon copyright tradition (based on Statute of Anne of 1710[2]) cares primarily about protecting the commercial value and exploitation rights of the works, with little concern about how "remixes could attack the honor of the author"[3] or anything like that.

[1] Of course you can trade away commercial exploitation rights.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

[3] To paint the German position with a very broad brush

[orra]

I know Germany doesn't do legal precedent, but is there actually any case law demonstrating works can't be put into the public domain?

The idea it can't be done is a trope at this point, but I am frankly skeptical.

Moral rights to recognition aside, copyright can be sold, like any other property. Why do we think it can't be abandoned, again like any other property?

[pgeorgi]

§42 UrhG (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__42.html, english translation https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...) is probably core to what an author can do about their personality rights in relation to their works:

---

Section 42 Right of revocation for changed conviction

(1) The author may revoke a right of use vis-à-vis the rightholder if the work no longer reflects his conviction and he can therefore no longer be expected to agree to the exploitation of the work. The author’s successor in title (section 30) may exercise the right of revocation only if he can prove that the author would have been entitled to exercise this right prior to his death and that he was prevented from exercising the right or provided for its exercise by testamentary disposition.

(2) The right of revocation may not be waived in advance. Its exercise may not be precluded.

... (more stuff that is about compensation and how you can't use this clause to just start to exploit the works on your own after taking it out of circulation, but not relevant here) ...

---

Putting stuff into the public domain would either mean:

- that an author waives their right to revocation in advance (that "rightholder" would be the public, I guess), but that's explicitly forbidden by (2) or

- that they can claw back the work from the public domain, which keeps the work in some weird state where it's PD-unless-the-author-objects.

The only way to put a work into something that is somewhat similar to the public domain under German copyright (without dying and waiting for 70 years) is to publish it anonymously with a dedication to the public, so that redistribution etc is clear, and then remove all traces that you authored it (e.g. drafts, notes, ...) - and even then it falls back to you if somebody starts digging and finds proof of authorship (§66 (2) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__66.html, english translation https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...). Any legal conscious redistributor wouldn't touch something like that with a 10 foot pole.

Just use CC0, it's cleaner.

As for

> Why do we think it can't be abandoned, again like any other property?

You can't sell yourself into slavery. That's the category personality rights operate in. Does it make sense for copyrights? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ghaff]

>Just use CC0, it's cleaner.

Which is probably fine for most text. Although note that CC0 was withdrawn from consideration by the OSI as a software license primarily because of issues around the patent language. (Basically the license does not grant patent rights which, depending on one's position about implicit grants, may or may not be an issue.) MIT-0 may be a better choice for software as a result.

[pbininda]

Small addition: the UrhG mentioned is the Urheberrechtsgesetz. Translated to English you would call it the "Law of rights of the originator". It is not just about "the right to make copies".

[kps]

The English term is ‘moral rights’.

[pgeorgi]

Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht (what is called "moral rights" in English) is a subset of Urheberrecht.

UrhG covers copyright and moral rights, some stuff at the intersection, and then some, but on the other hand lacking a few bits covered by US copyright.

1:1 mappings between legal regimes seem to be quite rare.

[orra]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Richard Hipp has had to gin up a license for SQLite because of this.