Personality Right

Judgement of AG Kerpen (Local Court Kerpen) of 04/11/2010, file number: 102 C 108/10

If footage of a traffic accident is available on the Internet, no consent is necessary for the publication if the people involved cannot be recognised. A visible licence plate number is not a decisive factor since this identifies the vehicle, not the driver. In case that the recognition is only based on the particular means of transport in relation with local conditions, as in the reported incident, the publication does not constitute any infringement of personality rights.

Judgement of LG Lübeck (Regional Court Lübeck) of 28/10/2010, file number: 14 S 135/10

In order to assess whether a statement is a statement of fact or an expression of opinion, the context has to be considered. It has also to be considered whether the statement falls within the scope of a political discourse. Participants of a political battle of opinions must tolerate statement that, isolated, would approach the limit of insulting criticism.

Judgement of AG Bremen-Blumenthal (Local Court Bremen-Blumenthal) of 23/08/2010, file number: 42 C 43/10

Property owners may restrain GEZ employees from unreported and unauthorised trespassing and, GEZ employees may also be banned from premises. This could happen provided that the GEZ employees’ purpose is obtaining the necessary information to collect the license fee. GEZ is not entitled to get any other information as the stated on the broadcasting contract. In case that the ban from the premises is infringed, the property owner’s privacy may be violated.

Judgement of LG Köln (Regional Court Cologne) of 12/05/2010, file number: 28 O 175/10

A nationwide well-known weather forecaster must not tolerate that the press publishes concrete details about the investigation concerning the procedure against him. Although the rape allegations count with an important public interest, they could cause a difficult complete rehabilitation of the weather forecaster in case of exculpation.

Judgement of KG Berlin (Superior Court of Justice Berlin) of 15/06/2010, file number: 5 U 35/08

Copies of already published photographs are certainly permissible as a part of a quotation and if they are not only used with pure decorative and illustrative purposes. The reproduction of an unmodified small picture in a larger picture shows a “copyright relevant intervention” according to §§ 72, 15, 16 UrhG (German Copyright Act).

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 27/04/2010, file number; 27 O 66/10

The plaintiff, a famous comedian, is in an alimony dispute with his father, who had admitted to the press in the past that he was impoverished and dependent on the maintenance of his son. The father’s lawyers wrote that “it is written in the stars to what extend such procedure can be kept away from the interest of the public”. The plaintiff demanded an omission from his father to speak to the media about the alimony procedure and about the fact that the plaintiff pays no maintenance. Thereafter, an article was published in which the father was quoted with the words: “My...

The public prosecutor’s office Hamburg has initiated preliminary investigations against Google, since the company has possibly violated the German Penal Law. The company photographed streets across Germany for its Internet service Street View, thereby data from unsecured WLAN connections and parts of e-mails have been “mistakenly” stored. Should private data have been unauthorised intercepted, an offence could be considered, according to § 202b StGB (German Penal Code).

Judgement of the LG Köln (Regional Court Köln) of 10/06/2009, file number: 28 S 4/09

The eBay assessment comment “never, never, never again! Money back, however goods kept – insulting and impudent!!!” stands on expressions of opinion elements as well as on statements of facts. As long as the facts are true at the time of the assertion of the comment and establish ties with the expressions of opinion to the factual reference, this is not an inadmissible abusive criticism. In view of the economic interests of the eBay users and the function of the assessment, easy to remember formulations may be also used. A claim to deletion of the assessment is not...

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 16/03/2010, file number: VI ZR 176/09

The installation of supervision cameras on a private property can affect the personality rights of a supposedly monitored neighbour. This could already occur just taking into account a suspicious situation. However, only the hypothetical possibility of monitoring is not enough.

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 02/03/2010, file number: VI ZR 23/09

Provided that an article published on the Internet injures the personality right of someone and shows at the same time a clear relation to Germany, the legal way to German courts is opened. A plaintiff resident in Germany took legal actions against the publisher of the newspaper “The New York Times” as well as against the author resident in New York, since the published article injured the plaintiff’s right.

Judgement of OLG Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court) of 09/02/2010, file number: I-20 U 151/09

When a movie contains a photo without the approval of the affected person, the freedom of art should be weighed against the personality right of the affected person. However, minors enjoy a considerably higher protection and, therefore, a consideration will basically grant their interests.

Judgement of LG Hamburg (Regional Court Hamburg) of 29/05/2009, file number: 324 O 1002/08

If a sportsman offends against the anti-doping regulations, the offence may be published. The plaintiff, member of the accused rowing club, offended against these rules, whereupon a warning to the sportsman was published on the homepage of the defendant. Herein the sportsman saw his general personality right injured. Nevertheless, the Regional Court of Hamburg did not share this view: Though the personality right is affected, however, in justified manner. In fact, there would be a public interest in this information, since doping offence is an important sports...

Judgement of LG Hamburg (Regional Court Hamburg) of 04/12/2009, file number: 324 O 338/09

The bare publishing of a paparazzi photo does not mean that the photographed public figure “collects promotionally”. In this case a known German photographer considered that he could require royalty payments from the defendant, since the publication of the photo shows him by reading a known Sunday paper. Nevertheless, the Regional Court Hamburg did not share that opinion. In case of pure journalistic use of the picture, the photographed cannot claim for remuneration. 

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 29/09/2009, file number: 27 O 736/09

Without concrete and actual reason, the reporting about the state of health of a celebrity is inadmissible, since this concerns the main area of privacy. A known entertainer and comedy actress was seriously ill; this was compared in the media with the situation of host who was also ill. However, the illness of any third person who has no relation with the first mentioned person shows no “actual reason”, therefore, the reporting injures the general Personality Right.

Decision of Hamburg OLG (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) of 13/11/2009, file number: 7 W 125/09

A web search engine operator does not injure the personality rights of people if, as result of the searching, web sites are shown in which these people are characterised, for example, as murderer.  The web search engine operator is responsible for such an injury of the personality right only if he does not comply with his due diligence. If this happens, the obligation to remove the proofs or the web sites from the web search engine comes into consideration. This assumes that he has knowledge of the contents of certain web sites.

Judgement of OLG Hamburg (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) of 15/09/2009, file number: 7 U 1/09

There is a possibility to confer the own personality rights on third parties. This can happen, for example, after ending a contract. A complete cession of these rights is although not possible; a cession of, for example, commercial parts of single personality rights is allowed.

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 31/01/2008, file number: 27 O 1000/07

Basically every person can determine whether portraits from themselves can be used and published. This also concerns film shoots. Television broadcasting stations, which film people, must have the explicit approval from those people to emit the images. Even if these people tolerate the recording, it is not enough to emit the images if they do not give an explicit approval. In case that these images should be broadcasted anyway, the identity of the filmed people should be unrecognizable.

Judgement of LG Berlin (Regional Court Berlin) of 20/08/2009, file number: 27 O 529/09

The Berlin district court confirms an injunction against a newspaper publisher due to an article in which the private sphere of a well-known singer was injured. The article informed about supposed rumours about an affair of the singer with a colleague. Spreading such suppositions about the love-life is inadmissible since the publication of such speculations lacked on information and therefore the interference in the private sphere of the singer was not justified.

Judgement of LG Köln (Regional Court Cologne) of 30/07/2008, file number: 28 O 148/08

A monetary indemnity of 15,000 € was assigned to the wife of a known television presenter due to the unjustified publication of the wedding ceremony on a magazine. The judges of the regional court Cologne explained the monetary indemnity with the fact that the plaintiff’s personality rights were considerably injured by the publication of the pictures. Pictures of the wedding, which she consciously planned excluding the public.

Press release No. 44/09 of AG München (Local Court Munich) about the judgement of 19/08/2009, file number: 161 C 3130/09

Basically the right to one’s own picture protects everybody against unauthorized spreading of own images, including aerial photos of own property. Thus, the right to one’s own picture is not infringed if the images cannot be assigned to a certain address and no single person can be recognized.