Satire verboten: Pope vs German magazine

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

It isn't a freedom of speech issue, its infringement of the vaticans marketing rights as their commercial image.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

It's complicated. Generally speaking, freedom of speech has a much higher value in regards to what's allowed in the US than here.
Here is the relevant section. It's among the first 20 sections of the German constitution which describe the basic and unalterable rights.

Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

You see that the conflict is between subsection 2 (personal honor of the pope) and subsection 1 (freedom of press) and 3 (freedom of art)

I haven't read the decision yet, should be available tomorrow, then I can tell more on which sections the decision is based.

So talking out of my unstained arse, I'd say the general laws, mentioned in (2) which can be used to limit free speech in this case could be in this example §103 Defamation of organs and representatives of foreign states (if the pope is considered the head of the state of Vatican) or even the blasphemy law(!), section 166. A private citizen could base his claims on section 185 or 186 - Insult/defamation.
You can find the criminal code here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/en...tgb/index.html

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It isn't a freedom of speech issue, its infringement of the vaticans marketing rights as their commercial image.

Given the number of law suits the Titanic already had, it would be foolish if they used an image of which they didn't acquire the publishing rights before.

In general, German citizens have a "right of possession" of their own picture, meaning that no pics shall be published without the person's consent. This however goes not for persons of "contemporary history", which the pope definitely is. (§22/23 KunstUrhG - sorry, no English version available online)

Altering a work from someone else to create a new (art)work, is also allowed - if there is enough "threshold of originality" - a definition that often leads to law suits. For example you are free to cover a music title without permission from the artist. In the example of the pope pic, the question is if 2 photoshop stains are enough to create a new piece of art.

Given the number of law suits the Titanic already had, it would be foolish if they used an image of which they didn't acquire the publishing rights before.

But the pope is a marketing brand for the catholic church which is itself a marketing brand.
Its the same as an image from any other business or in this case the "celebrity" is a brand just like a "celebrity" such as Paris Hilton.
Edit to add, I can't figure out if I am insulting the pope or hilton more thereor insulting them both the same or is it just insulting other celebrities

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But the pope is a marketing brand for the catholic church which is itself a marketing brand.
Its the same as an image from any other business or in this case the "celebrity" is a brand just like a "celebrity" such as Paris Hilton.
Edit to add, I can't figure out if I am insulting the pope or hilton more thereor insulting them both the same or is it just insulting other celebrities

Well, celebs are first regarded as persons here - if they did not register their name as a brand which many do. If an entity does this, a brand is protected for 10 years, which can be extended if the owner wants to do so, again for 10 years.
However if you would impose as Paris Hilton or the catholic church, you would violate section 12 of the German Civil Code (the right to a name). Not even regarding the laws of good taste you'd violate if you'd do so!
Still if you take a picture of Paris Hilton in public, she can't do crap to stop you from publishing it, no permission is needed, no royalties have to be paid. The permission to use the Titanic photo was probably bought from a picture agency to which the photographer sold the publishing rights.

[MH]

It is offencive to pope i guess ...and funny.
Pope is public figure just like any politician so should be prepared to have some of it.

[Skybird]

The magazine's staff said that it is all a misunderstanding. Indeed they meant to show how the Pope was enjoying and celebrated something (forgot what they said it was), and that he only spilled some orange lemonade during that, which can be seen on the picture. They plan to form a delegation that will go to Rome and they look forward to discuss the matter in the spirit of friendship with a highranking Vatican delegation and the pope himself. Somebody also said they would welcome Italian and German politicians to join the Vatican-Titanic-summit.

[Skybird]

Imagine they did this with some Imam who called for the assassination of infidels. People in 40 or 50 states would be in the streets now, yelling hysterically and showing red faces, probably trampling some smaller guys in their crowds to death again. Wetsern politiicans would warn of not absuing free speech, and to practice self-constraint. Everybody would warn his neighbour to be sensible for Muslim feelings and how precious and holy it all is.

Seen that way, they really picked the wrong target.

[JU_88]

Not offensive to me, I cant speak for Catholics though.