Problems of Digitization and Use of Digitized Works by Museums from the Position of German and Ukrainian Copyright Law




originality, digitization of works of art, non-original photographs, copyright, museums, virtual museum, and museum policy.


Introduction. The developing trends in the digitization of museum collections encourage the creation of virtual exhibitions.
Problem Statement. The laws of Ukraine and Germany have diff erent approaches to understanding a photographic work and non-original photographs reproduced in digital form, and there is a need to systematize and streamline the criteria for the originality of photographic works.
Purpose. The purpose of this research is to study the legal nature of the category of "originality", to analyze the criteria that determine the originality of photographic works, to substantiate the potential for legal protection of photographic works of art in digital form, to determine the possibilities of reproduction (digitization) of museum collections and provision of access to them by museums.
Material and Methods. A set of general scientifi c and special methods has been used. The materials for the study are publications of domestic and foreign researchers and scholars, norms of the applicable legislation of Ukraine and Germany.

Results. The comparative analysis of the doctrine and practice of Ukraine and Germany has led to the conclusion that “originality” is a condition for the protection of works under copyright, according to which it diff ers from other works and is endowed with such features as uniqueness, obscurity, and inimitability. The authors have studied the factors that determine the originality of photographic work: one’s creative contribution; it does neither repeats any already known photographic work nor is a copy of
other photographic work; contains a unique composition, angle, method of fi xation, etc.
Conclusions. The critical analysis of museum activities has made it possible to identify opportunities for reproducing (digitizing) works of art, providing digital services (free and paid) for access to digitized works, and restrictions (copyright compliance) that arise in museum activities in communication with authors of works of art.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

O. ROZGHON, Scientifi c and Research Institute of Providing Legal Framework for the Innovative Development of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

 відділ правового забезпечення галузевого інноваційного розвитку НДІ ПЗІР НАПрН України. 
к.ю.н, доцент, п.н.с. в НДІ ПЗІР НАПрН України


Arayaphan, W., Intawong, K., Puritat, K. (2022). Digitalization of ancient fabric using virtual reality technology at the Wieng Yong House Museum: The FabricVR project. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, e00233.

Trotska, V. M. (2018). Digital museums and restriction of authors’ property rights: EU legislation and practice. Theory and practice of intellectual property, 5, 18—29. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Volynets, V. (2020). New content and potential of the virtual museum. Digital platform: information technologies in the socio-cultural sphere, 3(2), 122—133. [in Ukrainian].

Rozghon, O. V. (2019). Virtual version of the museum as a means of implementing digital technologies. Law and innovative society, 2(13), 20—26. [in Ukrainian].

Digitalization of the Museum Fund of Ukraine: representatives of 12 leading museums will start testing a prototype of the electronic registry system. Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine. URL: news/8602.html (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland start digitizing Ukraine’s cultural heritage. UNIAN. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Maidanik, L. R. (2018). The concept of originality of a work in copyright: experience of the EU, Ukraine and other foreign countries. Entrepreneurship, economy and law, 10, 32—36. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Benassi, M., Grinza, E., Rentocchini, F. (2020). The rush for patents in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47(4), 559—588.

Nambisan, S., Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223—238. 2017/41:1.03

Klinowski, M., Szafarowicz, K. (2023). Digitisation and Sharing of Collections: Museum Practices and Copyright During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. URL:

Rymar, H., Rybicka, K. (2020). Legal aspects of the digitisation of museums and cultural objects. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [іn Polish].

Benhamou, Y. (2016). Copyright and Museums in the Digital Age. WIPO. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Margoni, T., Perry, M. (2011). Scientifi c and Critical Editions of Public Domain Works: An Example of European Copyright Law (Dis)Harmonization. Canadian Intellectual Property Review. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Torremans, P. (2022). The protection of cultural heritage by copyright and related rights. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage, 38—55. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Verdiani, G. (2021). Digital museums: meaning, use, phenomena and ideas for the virtual twins adventure. Conference: ArCo — Art Collections 2020At: Firenze, Italy. URL: museums_meaning_use_ phenomena_and_ideas_for_the_virtual_twins_adventure. (Last accessed: 21.08.2022)

Wallace, A., Euler, E. (2020). Revisiting Access to Cultural Heritage in the Public Domain: EU and International Developments. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2020. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Crews, K. D. (2014). Museum Policies and Art Images: Confl icting Objectives and Copyright Overreaching. Keys for architectural history research in the digital era. URL: 4000/books.inha.4927. (Last accessed: 28.02.2023).

Juristische Kurz-Lehrbücher. Urheberrecht. (2010). von Prof. Dr. Manfred Rehbinder Manfred Rehbinder. Verlag C.H. Beck München. C.H. Beck. URL: age.html (Last accessed: 28.02.2023).

Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old «Skill and Labour» Doctrine Under Pressure. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44 (1), 4—34. 0003-4.

Rosati, E. (2013). Originality in EU copyright: Full harmonization through case law. Cheltenham, UK. 272 p.

Mamchur, L., Sittsevoy, V. (2021). Correlation of the concepts of “orphan work” and “work that has passed into the public domain” in modern copyright. Theory and practice of intellectual property, 5, 13—24. URL: http://uran.inprojournal. org/article/view/244512. [in Ukrainian].

Dubniak, M. V. (2019). Problems of determining the legal regime of objects created using neural network technologies. Information and Law, 4, 45—53. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Rozghon, O. V. (2019). “Silent works” or another view on the content of works as objects of copyright. Forum of Law, 56(3), 69—76. [in Ukrainian].

Pastukhov, O. M. (2002). Copyright in the sphere of functioning of the World Wide Web./ (PhD). (Civil law and civil process; family law; international private law) [in Ukrainian].

Tarasenko, L. L. (2022). The new law on copyright (2022): challenges and prospects. Legal scientifi c electronic journal, 12, 171—174. [in Ukrainian].

Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., Svahn, F. (2013). Capability Search and Redeem across Digital Ecosystems. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 183—197.

Stefan, O. O. (2006). The concept of copyright object and the criterion of its protectability. Theory and practice of intellectual property, 6, 3—8. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Reshota, V. V. (2018). Judicial Application of EU Law as a Source of Administrative Law. Legal scientifi c electronic journal, 5, 130—133. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Case C-145/10. Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others. ECLI:EU:C:2011:798. Judgment 1.12. 2011. // EUR-Lex: Access to European Union Law. URL: CJ0145. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

С-5/08 Infopaq International [2009] ECR 1-6569. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 16.07.2009. URL: https:// (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Rosati, E. (2013). Originality in EU copyright: Full harmonization through case law. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar, 272 p.

Case 663. Similar Waylite Diary CC v. First National Bank. Judgment 25.08. 1994. URL: fi les/2012/08/Case-Comment-South-Africa-Copyright-Waylite-Diary-CC-v-FNB.pdf. (Last accessed: 31.01.2023).

Kanaryk, Y. S. (2021). Civil legal protection of photographic works as objects of copyright. Legal scientifi c electronic journal, 10, 116—118. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Kogan, T. S. (2015). The Enigma of Photography, Depiction, and Copyright Originality. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 25(4), University of Utah College of Law Research Paper, 125. URL: https://ssrn. com/abstract=2622148. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Mazurenko, S. V. (2008). Copyright on photographs. Actual problems of state and law, (42), С. 12—19. URL: http://nbuv. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Case I ZR 55/97. Werbefotos (OLG Düsseldorf). German Federal Supreme Court, BGH 03 11.1999. dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=03.11.1999&Aktenzeichen=I%20ZR%2055/97 (Last accessed: 31.01.2023)

Fabris, D. (2022). Copyright Protection of Photographs: a Comparative Analysis Between France, Germany and Italy. Kluwer Copyright Blog. (Università di Pavia). URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023)

Dieth, (2000). M. Musical work and music plagiarism in German copyright law. Baden-Baden [іn Germany].

Dreier, T., Schulze, G. (2022). Copyright Law: Commentary. 7th ed. Munich: C.H. BECK, Copyright Act. 1891 р. [іn Germany].

Schulze, G. (2007). The scope of copyright protection in Germany // Impulses for a European harmonization of copyright law/ Prospects for the harmonization of copyright in Europe: Urheberrecht im deutsch-französischen Dialog/ Franco-German meetings/ Reto Hilty (ed.), Christophe Geiger (ed.). Springer Вerlin Heidelberg, 117—141. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-540-72657-9_7 [іn Germany].

Kharytonova, O. I. (2016). Literary and scientifi c works as objects of copyright. Journal of civilization, 21, 100—104. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Case C-117/13. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11.09.2014. URL: document.jsf?text =&docid=157511&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=fi rst&part=1&cid=1523875. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Benedysiuk, I. M., Benedysiuk, I. M., Gumeha, O. V., Domanska, M. L., Lviv, B. Y., Marchenko, O. V., Moskalenko, V. S., Plias, N. P. Manual for judges on intellectual property (2018) Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Margoni, T. (2014). The Digitisation of Cultural Heritage: Originality, Derivative Works and (Non). Original Photographs. SSRN Electronic Journal. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Case I ZR 14/88. Bibelreproduktion. German Federal Court of Justice. BGH 08.11.1989. URL: vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.11.1989&Aktenzeichen=I%20ZR%2014/88. (Last accessed: 31.01.2023).

Rights of authors. Touring Artists. Guide. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Case I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos. Court of Justice 20.12.2018. URL: rechtsprechung/ &linked=urt&Blank=1 &fi le=dokument.pdf. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (UrhR). (2022). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, Commentary Book. Hardcover (In cloth) 6th, newly revised and expanded edition. C.H.BECK.. XXXVII, 3091 р. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023). [In Germany].

Schmid, G., Barudi, M. Update Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Taylor Wessing. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Schroff , S., Favale, M., Bertoni, A. (2017). The Impossible Quest — Problems with Diligent Search for Orphan Works. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 48. 51. Kapitsa, Y. M. (2019). Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright in the digital single market and issues of adaptation of Ukrainian legislation. Information and Law, 3, 65—77. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].

Towards better access to European cultural heritage in the digital environment. The European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

de la Durantaye, K. (2020). Wide and Collective — Out of Print Works and Collective Licensing with Extended Eff ect under the DSM Directive. Industrial property and copyright, 1. URL: 2020_ 01_Inhalt_fertig.pdf (Last accessed: 30.04.2023). [In Germany].

de la Durantaye, K., Kuschel L. (2019). Out-of-print works thought larger: Art. 8-11 DSM Guideline. Journal for Copyright and Media Law, 8—9, 694. URL: 2fZUM%2e2019%2eH0809%2eNAMEINHALTSVERZEICHNIS%2ehtm. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [іn Germany].

Keller, P. (2019). Explainer: What will the DSM directive change for cultural heritage insti tutions? URL: https://pro. les/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Explainer_%20 What%20will%20the%20DSM%20directive %20change%20for%20cultural%20heritage%20insti tutions_%20090619.pdf (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Comment of the European Copyright Society on the Implementation of Art.14 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital single market. URL: ecs_cdsm_implementation_article_14_fi nal.pdf (Last accessed: 21.08.2022).

Lehnert, K., Müller, A., Rauchut, F., Salewski, L., Urgast, S. (2022). Digitales Deutsches Frauenarchiv (DDF); Forschungs- und Kompetenzzentrum Digitalisierung Berlin (digiS); iRights Law. November 164 р. URL: opus4-zib/frontdoor/index/index/docId/8648 (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Museums & Deaccessioning in Europe. URL: (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Hilty, R. M., Moscon, V., Li, T. (2017). Preservation of Cultural Heritage. Modernisa tion of the EU Copyright Rules. Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. URL: cfm?abstract_id=3036787 (Last accessed: 30.04.2023).

Nobre, T. (2019). Implementing the new EU exception for preservation of cultural heritage. URL: (Last accessed: 22.08.2022).

Federal Court of Justice, press release. URL: chung/ Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2018&nr=90674&pos=3&anz=198 (accessed 21.08.2022) (Last accessed: 22.08.2022) [іn Germany].

Keller, P., Nobre, T., and Dimitrov, D.. Article 14: Works of visual art in the public domain. URL: Article-14-Works-of-visual-art-in-the-public-domain-eb1d5900a10e4bf4b-99d7e91b4649c86. (Last accessed: 22.08.2022).

Hillman, R., O’Rourke, M. (2010). The American Law Institute Principles of the law. Software Contracts. Hardbound. 308 p.

Stakhira, H. M. (2020). Civil and legal regulation of digital content circulation. (PhD). (Law). URL: http://dspace. (Last accessed: 30.04.2023) [in Ukrainian].




How to Cite

ROZGHON, O., DAVYDOVA, I., OLIUKHA, V., & SHEPELIUK, V. (2024). Problems of Digitization and Use of Digitized Works by Museums from the Position of German and Ukrainian Copyright Law. Science and Innovation, 20(1), 98–130.



Legal Protection of Intellectual Property