When copyright infringement at Disney and Pixar?

When can Disney / Pixar be sued?

is it an injury to create 3D models of Disney / Pixar characters and then post them publicly on Twitter?

Is it a violation if you create a modification in games (like Minecraft) by using Disney / Pixar characters (which have been modeled and are not copy-pasted) and are published free of charge and accessible to everyone?

What should you watch out for not violating Disney and Pixar's copyright infringement? When is it no problem (without a license) to publish something if you offer something for free?

I'm pretty insecure and before I do anything rash I ask this question here!

If you do all of this for yourself, that's not a problem. You can publish drawings by yourself. You can also create a mod for yourself.

It only has to be clear that all of this is private.

Publishing becomes more difficult?

You can only publish if you obtain the right of use. But of course you can also show it privately to your friends or even give it to them.

Acquiring usage rights as a private person will be very difficult and extremely costly, am I right?

Unfortunately, life is not a dream concert.

That's the way it is. You don't get it from Disney anyway.

It simply depends on the extent to which you create a new work.

If you simply take and adapt the work of Disney, it is a copyright infringement (see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/.../__23.html "Edits and changes" UrhG).

If you only orient yourself or let yourself be inspired, this can be allowed (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__24.html "Free use" UrhG).

According to http://www.schmunzelkunst.de/saq.htm#freinutz

the question of when a free use and when there's a use subject to approval is often difficult to answer. The transitions are fluid and an answer can only be found in individual cases. The UrhG only says that free use according to Par 24 must result in an independent work. The case law and the literature provide further decision-making aids […]

Please http://www.schmunzelkunst.de/saq.htm#freinutz!

In your case, I would say that you need approval - unless you create your own work that "fades" the original work, as a court once judged. But not if you only use the original because it is known and popular!

Illustrative examples: https://www.kpw-law.de/2014/08/18/asterix-vs-alcolix/, https://www.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/02120100/Urheberrecht/urhr_folie17_Asterix-Persiflagen.pdf, and here an https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Bundesgerichtshof_-_Disney-Parodie:

If the subject of a parody is a work under copyright protection, the parody may only be reproduced and distributed without the permission of the author of the parodied work if it represents an independent work that was created in free use of the parodied work. Whether and to what extent copyrighted parts of the parodied work may be adopted unchanged or with insignificant changes in the parody depends on. A. Depends on the extent to which borrowing is required to achieve the parodic effect. (Please read on; Gerd)

Yes, it will be difficult - and expensive! The companies employ lawyers who are just waiting to prosecute such copyright infringements. As a private individual you have bad cards.

Thank you very much for your detailed answer!

"My" works correspond! Think! I rather the https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/.../__24.html" class="text-primary">https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/.../__24.html "Free Use" UrhG. I do not couple in the white one but I "inspire" myself and model e.g. Wall-E in a block-style style. Then it is https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__24.html "Free Use" UrhG and may be published (if you don't want to make money with it), right?

(I would like to provide you with a sample render below this answer, unfortunately not possible. If you wish, I can send it to you by PM).

I'm not a specialist appraiser. Not about examples either ;-).

But: Whether you make money or want to earn it or not, usually doesn't matter at all - either a public reproduction is permitted or it is not!