Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that were correct (which I would doubt, German public broadcasters are very much pro-Green), it would in consequence mean that there is no copyright on any of Wikipedia or any non-opinion factual press piece. Which is obviously ridiculous as the replies also point out.
There are indeed a few non-lawyers grasping at straws in the replies to the twitter thread. It is not like Mr. Zimmermann is alone in his assessment. Other renowned experts like Professor for law Andreas Fischer-Lescano are of the same opinion. [1] But if you think the public broadcasters are biased towards the Green party, I must really question your political literacy. How would you even come to that conclusion? [1…
I must in turn question your literacy: Have you ever opened a newspaper? They all have their obvious bias. Seen TV? obvious bias. Famously the ZDF was founded after Adenauer had enough of the ARDs leftist bias. Nothing of that is new, and you have to be purposefully ignorant or illiterate to not see it. Of course it has become a fashion to only decry a bias in media of the opposing creed, calling the agreeing media fair and unbiased. But I would think that people can see through that...
As to the legal situation around Baerbocks book: Even if it were legal, it still is a political screwup of the highest magnitude. Why? Because now she is in one tradition with the likes of Guttenberg, Schavan, Giffey and others.