The right at the own picture or portrait right is a special development of the general personality right. Each humans may determine in principle even over it, whether at all and in which context pictures are published by it ("§ 22 P. 1 art copyright law (KUG)).

Recognizability

With portrait is not here only a photography or a photograph, but each recognizable rendition of a person meant, thus also designs, caricatures, photo assemblies, even the appearance of a double can rank among it. However artistic illustrations, which are published, fall not under the art copyright law, but under Art.5 Abs.3 GG, which the art liberty contained (see also Mephisto decision).

The consent for publication is however necessary only if the illustrating is individually recognizable. The recognizability can result also from accompanying circumstances. Even the anonymization by eye bars, usual in do not eliminate this recognizability necessarily (three in three/Schulze, UrhG, 2004, P. 1547 "§ 22 KUG Rdnr. 3). If a person is clearly identifiable by the context, it can resist the publication, even if its face courses are not shown at all.

In addition the regional court Frankfurt/Main in its judgement from 19 January 2006 (Az led.: 2/03 O 468/05) out: "“Under portraits in the sense "§ 22 KUG understands one the representation of a natural person in one for third recognizable way. Mostly the recognizability results from the illustration of the face courses. In addition, it is sufficient, if the illustrating - also its face may have to be recognized hardly or not at all - by characteristics, which itself devoted from the picture and which are own straight to it, is recognizable or its person by the added text or by the connection with earlier publications be recognized can (see BGH NJW 1979, 2205 - football-gate-wait; Prince/Peter, Medienrecht, Rz. 827). It is not necessary that the illustrating was actually recognized by certain persons. The right at the own picture is already then hurt, if the illustrating has justified cause, it could be identified. Is not necessary that the volatile viewer can recognize the illustrating in the picture, it is more sufficient the recognizability by or less large circle of acquaintances (see BGH NJW 1979, 2205 - football-gate-wait; v. Strobl Alberg in: Wenzel, the right of the word and pictorial report refunding, 5. Aufl., chapter 7.Rz. 15). Is crucial the purpose "§ 22 KUG to protect the personality to become available against its will in shape of the illustration for others. The special rank of the requirement on it that the public respects the self-sphere of the personality and its need after anonymity, requires an inclusion also such drop organizations into the protection of this regulation (see Peter/prince, a.a.O.)"” full text pdf

Pictures of public meetings (marching-up, concert, city celebration, demonstration) and if a person appears coincidental on a landscape or a building admission (for example church), without to be identifiable (see accessories (right)), are always permitted against it.

Persons of contemporary history

The requirement of a consent is however reduced after "§ 23 exp. 1 KUG for persons of contemporary history after German right.

In the German iurisdiction thereby a distinction between absolute persons of contemporary history and relative persons of contemporary history was in-patriated.

Absolute person of contemporary history is, who due to its position, acts or achievements it stands out unusual and in such a manner stands therefore in the focus of the public that a special interest of information in the person, as well as in all procedures, which constitute their participation in the public life exists (e.g. Helmut Kohl, Caroline of Hanover, Boris Becker). These persons may do also without their consent photographed and the material may be spread.

Relative persons of contemporary history are humans, who are come into connection with an time-historical event into the view of the public (e.g. the victims of the Gladbecker of hostage drama or e.g. sportsman during play). Pictures of these persons may be published only in connection with this event without consent.

After the so-called companion iurisdiction of the BGH also life partners or children rank of absolute persons of contemporary history among the relative persons of contemporary history. On it may be likewise reported then in connection with a common appearance without consent.

As guide is considered: The more a person in the public interest stands, the more becomes her a person from the range of contemporary history. However the protected zone of the inviolable privacy applies also to these persons. This restriction is already in "§ 23 exp. 2 KUG: The right to illustrate a person without consent does not extend "„to a spreading and a looking position, by which a justified interest of the illustrating is hurt "“.

This goods consideration is also in the again seized state security service document law, "§ to 32a StUG.

Paparazzi, Caroline and the EGMR

In addition, private lives and privacy are protected with persons of contemporary history in particular against Paparazzi. After the iurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court with it "“the own four walls"” as well as ranges of the are in the public, like e.g. a dinner in a separated corner of a restaurant meant (Caroline of Monaco judgement II).

The European Court of Justice for human rights (EGMR) divided the view of the BVerfG not and referred in its judgement from 25 June 2004 to the fundamental right to protection of the family and private life (article 8 of the European human right convention). Prominent ones do not have to withdraw themselves thereafter to a separated place within the public, in order to enjoy the protection of the So had Caroline of Monaco with their complaint against the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court finally success (see also Caroline judgement).

This judgement will lead possibly to the fact that the concept of the absolute and relative persons of contemporary history is revised. On the part of the press the judgement strongly criticized - it is feared that now the so-called "“boulevard"” - reporting to be limited could, if the public interest of information had to be to due now in each case to a respectable debate.

On the other hand judgements of the EGMR have only the rank of a simple national law, i.e. the judgement must be able to be measured for his part at the German Basic Law and at the Pressefreiheit.

Commercialization

Apart from the protection of the there are further cases, in which also with persons of contemporary history a consent is necessary for the publication ("§ 23 exp. 2 KUG). In addition a predominant justified interest of the concerning must exist. This is e.g. always given with advertisement: the right at the own picture is commercializable and has net assets. The picture may not be abused to advertising or business purposes. Differently it looks, if a picture is used with advertisement for a medium product, e.g. the title page of a magazine shows a prominent one and than advertisement for the magazine is plakatiert.

Inadmissible, T-Shirts would for example be or collect-ate with the illustrations from prominent ones to to drive out.

The Federal Constitutional Court decided in the year 2000 that the widow of Willy had to bear Brandt posthum its representation on an intending coin (proof).

Manipulations of pictures

The Federal Constitutional Court decided in the year 2004 from cause of a karikierenden picture manipulation: The carrier of the personality right is no right of third to be noticed only in such a way as it gladly to see itself would like (vgl.BVerfGE 97, 125 <148 f.>; 97, 391 <403>; stRspr), probably however a right that photographically provision width unit an image is not manipulativ disfigured, if it is made accessible third without consent of the illustrating. Indication of source.

Articles in category "Quite at the own picture"

We found here 2 articles.