3 ms·
It's an unusually badly written law: § 24 Works of art may be reproduced 1. if they are permanently located on or at a public place outdoors, 2. if the purpo
by Ma8ee 11y ago
It's an unusually badly written law:
§ 24 Works of art may be reproduced
1. if they are permanently located on or at a public place outdoors,
2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sales, or
3. if they are part of a collection, in catalogs, but not in digital form.
- thomasahle 11y agoInteresting. To me that reads like I can reproduce the art as soon as any of the three points is true. In that case the exception in the third point wouldn't matter, because we already have permission by the first point. I wonder if lawyers have a specific way of reading it though..
- hjnilsson 11y agoLaws are read in order of specificity. So the most restrictive law takes precedence. For example. In the sentence above, depictions in a catalogue is more specific than any depiction in a public place, so that takes precedence. (And in general, the constitution takes precedence over all other laws) As you may realise. There is a huge room for interpretation in the specificity, which is why we have courts & judges that settle these matters.