[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• They are already in court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT
• Here's what to do - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT

... is not allowed to be destroyed without permission from the copyright holder?

The entity that owns the land in it's entirety, the same entity that owns the building in it's entirety - but not the "copyright of the art" - a building which has no lien on it whatsoever by any other entity....

... and the owner can't just destroy the building and put up a new one without permission/paying a license fee of the "copyright owner of the work of art"?

I - personally - think that's just as crazy as some of the cases that the US allows. If, of course, I've understood the position correctly.

Note to self: if I get property built in Germany, make sure there's a contractual clause that says the owner of the building can destroy the "work of art" - whether the claim is in the painting or arhictectural design - without permission of the "arteest".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]