Decision of the Munich I Regional Court brings clarity to authorship of Martin Kippenberger’s “Paris Bar Version 1-3”
In its judgment of August 2, 2023 (Case No. 42 O 7449/22), the Munich I Regional Court, taking into account the relevant copyright criteria, established that Martin Kippenberger is to be considered the sole creator of the painting series “Paris Bar Version 1-3”. The proceedings, conducted in the interplay between moral rights and copyright attribution, addressed key aspects concerning the attribution of creative achievement in visual arts.
Background and subject of the dispute
Martin Kippenberger is regarded as one of the most renowned figures in contemporary international art. His series “Paris Bar Version 1-3” is not only part of major collections but is also regularly the subject of lively copyright debates. In the present case, the authorship of these works was challenged in court for the first time, with claims that a third party had been significantly involved in their execution and should be considered a co-author.
Core issues of the court’s assessment
Criteria for the existence of co-authorship
According to § 8 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), co-authorship exists when several persons jointly create a work, such that their respective contributions are so interwoven that they can no longer be perceived as separate works. The court therefore examined whether any shares contributed by a third party went beyond assistance or mere technical cooperation and, from a creative perspective, would have to be classified as intellectual co-authorship in the sense of copyright protection.
Distinguishing between assistance and creative collaboration
The Munich I Regional Court held that not every involvement in the work automatically gives rise to co-authorship. The decisive factor is whether the contribution significantly shapes the creative substance of the work or merely implements the main creator’s artistic instructions in a technical manner. As part of the taking of evidence, it was analyzed to what extent the other artist’s participation extended, and whether their activities went beyond mere execution according to instruction. Witness statements confirmed in court established that the core artistic concept and the essential design specifications were provided by Kippenberger, while the third party’s input was limited to the craftsmanship of execution.
Personal rights and moral rights of the author
The judgment emphasized the central importance of the moral rights of the author, which under §§ 12 et seq. UrhG are generally reserved solely for the author. According to the court, the exclusive right to determine the designation and acknowledgment of the work thus belonged solely to Martin Kippenberger.
Significance for the art market and artists
The findings of the Munich I Regional Court are particularly relevant for galleries, estate administrators and collectors. The clear attribution of authorship increases legal certainty for the trade and exhibition of the respective works. At the same time, the judgment highlights that distinguishing between creative activity and technical execution requires a demanding assessment of individual cases, which must consider the specific circumstances of artistic collaboration.
Conclusions
The decision of the Munich I Regional Court underlines the great importance of precise determination of rights attribution in jointly created artworks. It makes clear that only creative contributions lead to co-authorship, while mere assistance or technical support generally does not establish an independent copyright.
If clients or interested parties have questions about copyright attribution, moral rights of the author, or related topics, the lawyers at MTR Legal are available nationally and internationally for further information.
(Quelle: Landgericht München I, Urteil vom 2. August 2023, Az. 42 O 7449/22)
