Conni in the crossfire: Legal issues around memes of Germany's favorite friend

Contents

She is an icon of German nurseries: Conni, the girl with the red and white striped sweater and the characteristic red bow in her hair. For decades, the character from Carlsen Verlag has accompanied children through everyday adventures. Recently, however, Conni has started an unexpected second career: On social media, she has become the leading lady of a viral meme trend that users are serving up via the image function of ChatGPT.

This trend has sparked a heated debate. While many users are amused by the creative and often ironic reinterpretations, others see it as a disrespectful rip-off of other people's intellectual property. At the center of this dispute is Carlsen Verlag itself, which has responded with a harsh press release and threatened legal action. This is a clash of two worlds: traditional copyright law on the one hand and the dynamic, participatory and often anarchic culture of the Internet on the other.

Blanket illegal?

The publisher's blanket threat of a ban gives many readers the impression that any use of the figure is illegal across the board. However, the actual legal situation is far more nuanced and surprisingly user-friendly. At the heart of the legal assessment is Section 51a of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), which was newly created in 2021. This provision allows the use of protected works for caricatures, parodies and so-called pastiches without the permission of the rights holder being required.

The term pastiche is particularly relevant to Internet culture. A pastiche is a borrowed use that takes up elements of a well-known work to create something new, especially in the form of an internet meme. The Conni character serves as a recognizable cultural reference point to make an independent statement about everyday life or social issues.

However, not every meme is automatically legally compliant. Legality is checked on a case-by-case basis using a three-stage test. Firstly, the meme must not be a mere copy, but must represent a recognizable creative examination. This is almost always the case with memes due to the combination of image and new text, as is the case here. Secondly, the commercial exploitation of the original must not be impaired. This will not be the case with the Conni memes either, as they do not compete with the books or radio plays. On the contrary, the viral hype can be seen as a massive, free advertising campaign that even increases brand awareness.

The unacceptable red line

The third and most important stage is the decisive red line: the legitimate interests of the publisher must not be "unreasonably infringed" by the new creation. If Conni images are misused for inhuman, racist or defamatory content, for example, this constitutes such an infringement. The rights holder does not have to tolerate the resulting damage to reputation. In this respect, it is understandable that legal action is announced by the publisher specifically against such content.

Equally risky and often illegal is the commercial use of Conni memes by companies for advertising or marketing purposes. This constitutes unfair exploitation of the character and in many cases will not only violate copyright law but also trademark law. This is because, in addition to the copyright, the publisher is also entitled to the rights arising from several trademarks registered with the German Patent and Trademark Office. In this respect, the publisher's threats are entirely justified.

Conclusion

The vast majority of privately produced, creative and humorous Conni memes are within the legal framework intended and created by the legislator. If this is exceeded, for example through inhuman content or unauthorized commercial use of the Conni comics, the publisher can take action against this. On closer inspection, it announces nothing else in its press release.

(vbr)