3 ms·

There are a lot of uncertainties in this area. For example, if you provide journalistic content on your website (e.g. regular blog postings, even for free),then

There are a lot of uncertainties in this area. For example, if you provide journalistic content on your website (e.g. regular blog postings, even for free),then this could be interpreted as an opinion-forming activity, which in turn requires an imprint. (Source [German]: https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html )

SyneRyder 9y ago
The Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz seems to give a similar opinion: http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommunikation/Impressumspflicht/Impressumspflicht_node.html http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommuni... I'm reading from the English translation here, but it suggests that "businesslike" also includes something that is ongoing / sustained. So if your personal blog is posted every Tuesday, it could be said that is "businesslike" (geschäftsmäßig). They also specify that profit is not a requirement.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  The "I have a blog and now I need an imprint" faction is essentially FUD. Geschäftsmäßig doesn't require Gewinnerzielungsabsicht (intent to make a profit), but does actually require an intent to make business, in whatever form, but not necessarily on the site itself. For example, a business owner having a very simple website just stating what his business does will require an imprint on that site, because obviously the intent of the website is to inform about his business. If, on the other hand, you have a blog with no ads about your kittens then you don't need an imprint. Just because something is an unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff (non-exhaustively defined law term) doesn't mean you can just go ahead and act as if it means anything you like.
  - SyneRyder 9y ago
    I've given you an upvote, as that does seem to make sense. But to confirm, the particular quote from the BMJV that I was going by on that page is this one, does it match with your understanding? (My German comprehension isn't great.) "Die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht muss praktisch von jedem, der ein Online-Angebot bereithält, erfüllt werden. Etwas anderes gilt nur bei Angeboten, die ausschließlich privaten oder familiären Zwecken dienen und die keine Auswirkung auf den Markt haben. Im Zweifel sollten Sie davon ausgehen, dass die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht besteht." The first sentence seemed to say that "in practice everyone offering something online must comply", and I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible". But as someone learning German I've probably interpreted those too narrowly, and I'd love to be corrected on the nuance!
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      > die ausschließlich privaten oder familiären Zwecken dienen und die keine Auswirkung auf den Markt haben which exclusively cater to private/family needs/affairs and [thus] have no impact on the markets. > I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible". No, privaten Zwecken here refers to personal affairs.
stronglikedan 9y ago
Holy wow, that seems draconian! Is it solely so they can find you and prosecute you for your opinions? (serious question)
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  That has nothing to do with opinions but being able to contact someone if laws are broken etc.

SyneRyder 9y ago

The Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz seems to give a similar opinion: http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommunikation/Impressumspflicht/Impressumspflicht_node.html http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommuni... I'm reading from the English translation here, but it suggests that "businesslike" also includes something that is ongoing / sustained. So if your personal blog is posted every Tuesday, it could be said that is "businesslike" (geschäftsmäßig). They also specify that profit is not a requirement.

blattimwind 9y ago
The "I have a blog and now I need an imprint" faction is essentially FUD. Geschäftsmäßig doesn't require Gewinnerzielungsabsicht (intent to make a profit), but does actually require an intent to make business, in whatever form, but not necessarily on the site itself. For example, a business owner having a very simple website just stating what his business does will require an imprint on that site, because obviously the intent of the website is to inform about his business. If, on the other hand, you have a blog with no ads about your kittens then you don't need an imprint. Just because something is an unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff (non-exhaustively defined law term) doesn't mean you can just go ahead and act as if it means anything you like.
- SyneRyder 9y ago
  I've given you an upvote, as that does seem to make sense. But to confirm, the particular quote from the BMJV that I was going by on that page is this one, does it match with your understanding? (My German comprehension isn't great.) "Die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht muss praktisch von jedem, der ein Online-Angebot bereithält, erfüllt werden. Etwas anderes gilt nur bei Angeboten, die ausschließlich privaten oder familiären Zwecken dienen und die keine Auswirkung auf den Markt haben. Im Zweifel sollten Sie davon ausgehen, dass die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht besteht." The first sentence seemed to say that "in practice everyone offering something online must comply", and I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible". But as someone learning German I've probably interpreted those too narrowly, and I'd love to be corrected on the nuance!
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    > die ausschließlich privaten oder familiären Zwecken dienen und die keine Auswirkung auf den Markt haben which exclusively cater to private/family needs/affairs and [thus] have no impact on the markets. > I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible". No, privaten Zwecken here refers to personal affairs.

stronglikedan 9y ago

Holy wow, that seems draconian! Is it solely so they can find you and prosecute you for your opinions? (serious question)

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
That has nothing to do with opinions but being able to contact someone if laws are broken etc.