Die Weltbühne: How Holger Friedrich secured the rights

Weltbühne heir Nicholas Jacobsohn claims he was deprived of his rights by the publisher of the Berliner Zeitung. But that's not true. A reconstruction.

Not only is the heat outside currently rising sharply. Public outrage surrounding statements by Holger Friedrich, publisher of the Berliner Zeitung, has also reached a new peak. "Nothing stays the same" – this was the title under which Friedrich invited people to a discussion at the " Ettersburg Talks " near Weimar over two weeks ago. The intention was to discuss "social change, media, responsibility, and his East German biography."

At the event, the publisher was then asked about allegations made by Nicholas Jacobsohn, the US-based grandson of Siegfried Jacobsohn, the Jewish journalist and founder of the famous "Weltbühne," who claimed that Friedrich had republished the magazine this year without his consent. Jacobsohn called an article in the Weltbühne "harmful" and described Friedrich's actions as "expropriation" and his conduct "unethical."

During this "Ettersburg Conversation," a sentence was uttered that is currently the subject of controversy: Jacobsohn expressed his disappointment and "perhaps even a little shocked" that the "American East Coast moneyed aristocracy had been so outsmarted by an East German" when the Weltbühne was purchased. In plain language: Friedrich successfully prevailed against Nicholas Jacobsohn in the dispute over the Weltbühne rights.

Definition of East Coast aristocracy

The term "East Coast moneyed aristocracy" is now causing heated debate. The daily newspaper taz judged: "The deliberate rhetoric of the East Berlin native could indicate antisemitic resentment." The Jüdische Allgemeine quoted antisemitism researcher Remko Leemhuis, who called the term one of the "oldest antisemitic stereotypes." Felix Klein, Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, made a similar statement in the Jüdische Allgemeine. "The Berlin publisher Holger Friedrichs has publicly labeled the grandson of the Jewish founder of the venerable Weltbühne an 'East Coast moneyed aristocracy.'" He continued: "Especially in the context of Jacobsohn's implied powerlessness in the face of him, it is unfortunately reasonable to assume that Friedrich, whose profession is language and communication, is familiar with these codes and therefore deliberately used the phrase."

Upon closer inspection, the outrage reveals itself as absurd, the accusations as dishonest—a storm in a teacup. Looking at the genesis of the newly published Weltbühne, it becomes obvious: Friedrich's goal was to revive a German-Jewish project with Jacobsohn. The publisher is defending himself accordingly. He informs the Jüdische Allgemeine that the term "East Coast moneyed aristocracy" does not refer to Jacobsohn's Jewish background: "Reference points include, for example, the US historian George Dyson in 'Turing's Cathedral' or the British historian Frances Stonor Saunders." She describes "the 'so-called East Coast aristocracy' in cooperation with the 'Ivy League' as 'a kind of brotherhood of Anglophile educated citizens who saw the justification for their actions anchored in the traditions of the Enlightenment and the Declaration of Independence.'"

The Weltbühne should be revived as a German-Jewish cultural asset

In light of the so-called Weltbühne scandal, one must conclude that Felix Klein has fallen victim to an absurd misinterpretation. Anyone familiar with the communication between Holger Friedrich and Nicholas Jacobsohn must conclude that the Weltbühne heir was not the powerless one in the dispute over the rights. On the contrary: Jacobsohn had every opportunity to resolve the dispute over the rights in his favor.

Jacobsohn would later claim the opposite. He told Die Welt: " Without my consent or even waiting for a reaction from me, the Ossietzky Society's trademark rights were transferred to Holger Friedrich, who then filed a request for cancellation of my prior rights on April 17. This is outrageous and, in my opinion, unlawful. "

The truth is different. Before the acquisition of the rights in 2025, a Jewish friend advised Friedrich to reclaim Die Weltbühne as a German-Jewish cultural asset from the past and revive it as a German-Jewish project. Together with Jacobsohn.

Holger Friedrich was interested in a cooperation

In January 2025, Friedrich contacted the German association Weltbühne eV, which, parallel to Jacobsohn, holds registered trademark rights to the term Die Weltbühne and cites a previous transfer of rights by the publisher of the GDR Weltbühne. And, Friedrich invited the founder's grandson, Nicholas Jacobsohn, whom Friedrich invited three times for talks to revive the project in a joint collaboration. Friedrich was able to reach an agreement with Weltbühne eV and take over the rights. Communication with Jacobsohn proved difficult. But Friedrich knew that if Jacobsohn didn't respond, he could have Jacobsohn's rights deleted after taking over the association's Weltbühne rights. Nevertheless, Friedrich was interested in cooperation; he wanted to reach an agreement with Jacobsohn.

The correspondence between Friedrich and Jacobsohn's lawyers attests to the numerous attempts at contact, contrary to Jacobsohn's claims. On January 21, 2025, the lawyer for the Berliner Verlag first contacted Jacobsohn's legal representative, also based in Berlin, in an email. Even in this first email, the journalistic direction of the planned Weltbühne project was clearly outlined. The goal was to "complement current developments with a humanistic-pacifist perspective. This is in the direct tradition of the journalism of Tucholsky and Ossietzky." On behalf of the Berliner Verlag, the lawyer requested contact with the American Jacobsohn heirs with the aim of finding an amicable solution to the rights issue. The same email also mentioned a planned cooperation with Weltbühne eV, culminating in the statement that the Berliner Verlag would be enthusiastic about developing a similar perspective with the American side.

Once GDR, always GDR?

Two days later, on January 23, Jacobsohn's lawyer requests – "before I contact my client" – information about project managers, statutes, guarantees of independence, and financing. However, at this early stage, the Berlin publisher sees no reason to make sensitive information available to anyone other than the rights holder himself, namely Nicholas Jacobsohn. In the coming weeks, attempts are made to contact Jacobsohn by other means, unfortunately in vain. Months later, on March 5, Jacobsohn's Berlin lawyer contacts us again. According to what I have learned through my research about your client's intentions, he writes, "your client is striving for a kind of revival of the 'DDR-Weltbühne'. Just to be clear: A new media product in the tradition of the 'DDR-Weltbühne' is unacceptable to our client."

Just reading the 15-line, quite concise first email from the Berlin publishing house's lawyer could have disabused Jacobsohn's lawyer of a notion. The "direct tradition of journalism by Tucholsky and Ossietzky" is certainly not the tradition of the GDR's world stage. Jacobsohn's West Berlin lawyer doesn't seem to have been interested. Had he come across the East German biography of publisher Holger Friedrich during his research? Did he conclude with the wisdom of the Cold Warrior: once in the GDR, always in the GDR?

Berliner Verlag has secured Weltbühne trademark rights

Nearly two weeks after the negative response, Friedrich's lawyer contacted the opposing party again. His client was in New York and was actually already prepared to request the cancellation of Jacobsohn's Weltbühne rights, "since the reasons for non-use no longer exist after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and we are now in the fourth decade of non-use." On the other hand, a cooperative approach between Friedrich and Jacobsohn was still conceivable.

The offer remained unheard of. On April 17, the Berlin publishing house's lawyer informed Jacobsohn's lawyer of the next step. Did the letter ever reach its recipient? A new advance followed on May 7. Four weeks later, Friedrich was invited to a meeting with Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog. He considered the possibility of publicly presenting the Weltbühne project there and invited Nicholas Jacobsohn to attend. This email also reached Jacobsohn's lawyer. Nine days later, the reply arrived: "Nicholas Jacobsohn appreciated the kind invitation to Israel." However, such a meeting would "create facts that have yet to be established." What he probably meant was: that still needed to be established. Jacobsohn's lawyer suggested a later meeting in Berlin and recalled his questions from January, which were intended to clarify what new journalistic goals the Weltbühne should pursue.

On May 20, the publication date of the first Weltbühne in 32 years, the lawyer for Berliner Verlag provided the answers: The editors of Weltbühne are Dr. Thomas Fasbender and Behzad Karim Khani; the publishing house is Berliner Verlag, which is wholly owned by the Friedrich family. None of this was so essential that a dialogue couldn't have been initiated weeks or months earlier.

On this day, May 20, the Berliner Verlag had already secured its Weltbühne trademark rights; the applications for expiration of expired rights had been effectively filed. The heirs of the legendary Siegfried Jacobsohn failed to exercise their rights to the Die Weltbühne trademark either after 1945 or after 1990, and they failed to do so in 2025. Were they poorly advised? Was Nicholas Jacobsohn even aware of the invitations and offers of discussions from the Berliner Verlag? Did he ever form his own opinion of the people who want to revive his grandfather's life's work in the 21st century, beyond the "research results" of his Berlin lawyers? The documentary evidence gives cause for skepticism.

Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]