Disclaimer

The term Disclaimer is used in Internet law as a technical term for a disclaimer. This disclaimer are mainly found in emails and on websites. He is originally from the English "to disclaim ", what means " deny " or " deny ".

• 2.1 Reasons for distancing
• 2.2 Legal Review
• 2.3 Technical approach to avoid the imputation of other views

• 3.1 E -mail Disclaimer
• 3.2 Web Disclaimer

• 5.1 to e- mail disclaimers
• 5.2 to Web disclaimers
• 5.3 jurisprudence

E -mail Disclaimer

An e- mail disclaimers often has to content that the Reading, he was the e-mail have accidentally received and not the meant recipient, the content of such email immediately should forget and e- mail either to the sender to back or send it to the intended recipient. The disclaimer has nothing to do with the legally prescribed in Germany for business signature.

Legal review

However, should such an e -mail disclaimer according to the majority view among lawyers be ineffective. The ineffectiveness is due to two circumstances:

First, it is very difficult to induce a third party to forget Visited. Second, it would be in these disclaimers according to the majority view to terms and conditions. However, this would have to be made ​​accessible to the addressee before opening the e- mail, otherwise they are not a part of the contract. In most cases, such stories are also only below the contents of a message, which excludes any legal relevance.

Website Disclaimer

For fear of being held liable for links set, can be found on numerous websites German operators (including lawyers ) a reference to the judgment of 12 May 1998 of the Regional Court of Hamburg with the file number: 312 O 85 /98. Relying on this judgment is claimed that one must distance ourselves from all links, in order not to be financially responsible.

For all links on this homepage: I dissociate myself hereby expressly from all contents of all linked websites addresses on my homepage and do not adopt these contents.

Reasons for distancing

Distancing you from links, so the question arises, why it states at all. A link represents a recommendation or indication of a source dar. From first is a distancing hardly possible of second distances itself usually already associated text.

Reasons to distance themselves from the link, but to keep this, however, it may be several:

• In a linked site, there are a lot of interesting information which outweigh
• Uncertainty as to whether the linked information are criminal or civil law objectionable
• Linking, without reviewing all the pages of the linked page
• Possible interim changes on the linked page

The last point of this list is likely to also be the most important. Since the linked site is not under one's own management, thus you have no control, whether it's content later contains legally questionable passages.

Legal review

In legal terms, such a disclaimer is hardly durable. In particular, the judgment of the Landgericht Hamburg will fail quotes:

The judges have decided in a particular case that the mere indication that places the link would take over no liability for any infringement on the target page is not enough. The defendant was linked only to sites with defamatory remarks about the plaintiff, in an assortment of hyperlinks. According to the court was recognized by the overall context of his intention to endorse such statements. Through his statement that he was not liable, it change nothing.

This statement of the judgment is not really spectacular knowledge, for it is quite generally that existing statutory liability can not be unilaterally by the person who commits an act of infringement are excluded. However, the decision has been overwhelmingly misunderstood to imply that one must now also dissociate by a further ( verbal ) explanation of the contents of the link targets is thus no longer only unilaterally exclude the liability.

This overlooks that had argued in the case decided places the link itself on its side in a similar manner as was done on the side to which referred his link. For the unprejudiced reader it was therefore so is that the author of the output side made it his own and the content of the target page. Therefore put his Indemnification clarification also no real distancing is, but was at best lip service.

Therefore, it is in any case on the assessment of all the circumstances. If, for example, on pages of an anti- fascist organization, a link can be found on pages with Nazi propaganda, which could only be understood as evidence of a specific allegation or indication of the source. Conversely, should find a link from a web page, on the already sympathy for appropriate ideas are expressed, establish liability, regardless of whether the disclaimer is used or not.

The current Telemedia Act normalized many authors consider a privilege of liability in § § 8 and 9 for the cases in which places the link had no knowledge of illegal content, but only if makes the site operator in the usual right not to own. "To own making " is, to give the impression that it was to their own statements. This can, however, easily reached by a corresponding appearance of the links.

Therefore, the legal situation is still unclear. This mainly concerns the question whether even a negligent liability is concerned, if the hyperlink originally referred to a legally acceptable document that has been changed without the knowledge of the link setter and now has an illegal content.

The Higher Regional Court of Munich held, in a judgment of 15 March 2002, Case No. 21 U 1914/ 02 the view that setting a hyperlink opens up a source of danger and places the link was therefore obliged to check even after setting the hyperlinks to which contents of the hyperlink points. By judgment of 30 March 2006, the Federal Court has held, AZ: I ZR 24 / 03, that disclaimer on Web sites, however, must be observed as long as they are meant seriously and clearly visible to the user.

According to the BGH, the advertiser can limit the area of ​​distribution of advertising on the Internet by way of a disclaimer, in which he announces, not to supply the addressee in a particular country. To be effective, this disclaimer must be uniquely designed and meant to be serious because of its layout conceived and are actually respected by the advertiser.

Technical approach to avoid the imputation of other views

The previous versions of the article the following is the statement of the non-uniform case law taking into account, among others, the following possibilities exist to set links to achieve the strongest possible separation of own and others' views:

• Clear identification of external links
• Open external links in new browser windows (but makes you look using this method with many visitors unpopular recommendations for usability are against it, as the barrier -free Information Technology Ordinance - it requires at least a reference to the opening of a new window; used are classified as having disapproved HTML attribute that accounted for in the strict versions of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0)
• , So always link No setting " deep links " to the home page of a website ( also not very user friendly )
• Identify when a link was set. This makes it clear that in any change of ownership of the linked Internet presence there, even the intended content was present and not the possibly illegal content. Even after subsequent appearance of illegal content on the linked page, this may possibly protect against liability claims.