Am 23.10.22 um 01:05 schrieb Sebastian Nielsen via mailop:
The article you linked to, was very clear (when running it through google translate) that the imprint requirement only required if it was a PAID service, requiring some compensation to use.
Seemingly this requirement moved into §18 (1) Medienstaatsvertrag (MStV) and »geschäftsmäßig« (§5 (1) TMG) _seems_ to be understood in German legalese as something that is linked to someones "economic activity" (»Bestandteil seiner wirtschaftlichen Betätigung«, according to [1]) these days. It's some decades since I started to blog, and at some point in time the understanding was basically: like a car on public streets needs a registration, anything that is put on the WWW by Germans or from German soil does, too. There were some changes in recent years (creation of the »Medienstaatsvertrag«, replacing the »Rundfunkstaatsvertrag« from 2020 on, now applying to »Telemedien« as well as TV or radio broadcasts), but AFAICS the basic imprint requirement hasn't changed. MStV seems to add just another layer of legalese on top; from my point of view, too many lawyers in the parliaments, striving for their fourth Porsche 911 or first Mercedes-Benz 300 SL ... Okay, de.wikipedia.org does has some historical context [2]:
The essential reform of the German legislation in the field of information and communication was carried out by the law regulating the framework conditions for information and communication services (Information and Communication Services Act - IuKDG) of July 22, 1997. The Teleservices Act was promulgated as Article 1. The Teleservices Act stipulated that every commercial and business-related web presence on the Internet must contain a provider ID. The term “businesslike” also includes all continuous, non-commercial offers. The old Teleservices Act was replaced by the Telemedia Act on March 1, 2007.
Disclaimer: above's translation via translate.google.com _somehow_ reads right, but take it with a grain of salt. E. g. »Anbieterkennung« might literally translate into a "provider ID", but if I'd read about a "provider ID", I'd expect some state-issued ID card that I'm a provider of something. »Anbieterkennung« here actually means "imprint obligation" — "who actually has written this text"? Given another part of the Wikipedia entry, Google translates »Anbieterkennzeichnung« to »provider identification«, which fits a bit better.
"(1) Service providers shall keep the following information easily recognisable, directly accessible and permanently available for business-like telemedia, which are generally offered for remuneration:"
Yes, but "business-like" may or may not mean the same to you and/or to your lawyer what »geschäftsmäßig« means in German legalese. The Duden has 3 definitions for that word [3], only one of it goes broadly into a similar direction as [1].
Business-like telemedia and remuneration is about payment, commercial services that require money or other compensation to use.
See [2]: "The term “businesslike” also includes all continuous, non-commercial offers." (»Unter den Begriff „geschäftsmäßig“ fielen auch alle stetigen, nicht-gewerblichen Angebote.«) AFAIK, if _you_ get _any_ *benefit* from what you put on your website (via ads, affiliate links, whatever), you're busted without an imprint. IANAL, and I don't play one on Telemedien ;-)
But completely free services, are completely excempt from the imprint law. If its free as in free beer, its not a service "offered for remuneration" and thus law does NOT apply.
Yes, no, maybe — I'd either put up an imprint e. g. if I'd write about stuff on Github I wrote, OR get proper legal advice from a lawyer specialized in German media law. (And then put up an imprint nonetheless, unless another lawyer explained to me that wrong counsel would make the first lawyer liable.)
In Sweden for example, we have a identical law for telecommunication (being a ISP). If you provide free public wifi in a café, you do NOT need permission or notify the authorities.
You don't need permission in Germany, but I'm unsure about the current state of affairs regarding notification to BNetzA based on §5 TKG. Does a free WiFi in a Café or Hotel fall under "commercial" (»gewerblich«)? You might not _charge_ for it, but not offering it these days reduces the attractiveness of the venue. And, frankly, as you will put the costs for accesspoints and connectivity into your balance sheet to the tax authority, it's directly connected to your business. But, as I said, IANAL and I'm not up to date on recent events in that area. But because of »Mitstörerhaftung«, "Free WiFi" still isn't a thing in Germany anyway ...
But if you ask for payment, or require that the customer buys something to gain the wifi password, then it’s a service "offered for remuneration" and you need a telecommunications license like a ISP in Sweden.
So different legislation; in Germany, §5 TKG says (edited Google translation): "(1) Anyone who commercially operates public telecommunications networks or commercially provides publicly accessible telecommunications services that are not number-independent interpersonal telecommunications services, must report the intended start, change and termination of his activity, as well as changes to his name or company, his legal form and his address, to the Federal Network Agency immediately. The notification must be made in writing or electronically." No license. Just notifcation. -kai [1] https://gesetze.io/definitionen/geschaeftsmaessig-p7k3 [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht [3] https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/geschaeftsmaeszig _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
