More legal hassles for photographers - Germany

This is a strange one. In germany, a gay man sued a newspaper for

publishing a photo of him at a gay rally, on the basis that his colleagues and

family did not know he was gay. Yet this was a public event, which

presumably his family or colleagues could have seen anyway.

report <a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/

0,7495,1546897,00.html">here</a>

 

 

<p>I suspect if the newspaper had run the photo with a piece that was more

obviously news-based, and specifically about the march, as opposed to what

sounds like an opinion (and perhaps opinionated) piece, they might have had

a Fair Use defence. But it's still one more problem to contend with...

Did he win? this is stupid.

The guy should not been in that rally then.

I think the newspaper have right to take a picture of a parade, gay or not.

You might have to sign in for the link to work, so here's a fraction of the story:

<p>

"The German man, who has not been named for legal reasons, was awarded

[uKP 3,500] this week by the Munich County Court after a local newspaper

ran pictures of him in the arms of another man during the Christopher Street

Day festival in Wuerzburg three years ago."

The Muni ch County Court judge at the said outing a gay man in this manner

was not acceptable, "even in these days of an ever-increasing liberalisation

of society towards sexual issues" and added: "Neither the state nor a third

party, and especially not the press, may abuse the fundamental right to

privacy."

He granted the unnamed claimant 5,000 euros (?3,461) in damages. The

newspaper has the right to appeal. <p>

Obviously, this ruling greatly extends the right to privacy, as now one can

claim privacy at a public event.

Not new.. this is just fallout from a previous privacy case:

 

von Hanover (aka Princess Caroline of Monaco) v Germany - ECHR ca 1994

 

Subject of that case: Revealing private facts and right to a family (private) life.

 

Hunter

Here is the case in detail if you are interested:

 

The European Court of Justice decides on right of privacy of public persons in the Von Hanover v. Germany case

 

24/06/2004

 

The rules applicable to privacy of public figures vary from one country to another. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) clarified last June the interaction between Article 8 (right of privacy) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The case involved publication of pictures of Princess Caroline Von Hanover in different German newspapers. The photographs in question represented the Princess in her day-to day life.

 

In reaching its conclusion the ECHR held that, although Princess Caroline Van Hanover was a well known public person, she did not exercise any official function. The Court therefore decided that the general public did not have a legitimate interest in knowing about the Princess? private life, even if she appeared in public places and was likely to be recognised by the public. The court therefore considered that there was a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

the decision of the ECHR is accessible here (MS Word .doc)

 

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49&key=8274&sessionId=3478398&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true

 

Hunter

revealing private facts is an old law, so old that its called common law. How its described is what its all about since the gay was not a "public" figure. Even politicos have the right to their sometimes bizzare privacy. The paper is lucky they didn't get hit for some real money.

Er, if he is out attending a gay rally, in public, I don't think any sane person would believe that he was trying to keep it a secret... What's next, newspapers blurring every face in a crowd shot? Having a generic crowd shot posed by models that's used for every event?

I think that is one difference between Europe and the US. In the US it would have been a debate about the freedom of speech, and the newspaper probably would have won. right to privacy in US, while supposedly exist are harder to enforce. many argue (when the government proposes putting cameras in high crime neighborhoods) that there is no need to privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong.

 

woohoo. go US.

 

hopefully this wasn't too far off subject.

A USA newspaper would have won!

Truth would have been served!

The fact that a man can exibit himself in a public place and the demand privacy is ludricous. That he won is weird!

Oh well, its like the idiot woman who sued McDonalds for scalding herself, by driving off, with coffee-cup between her legs! She wins!

The "new" Europe with all these new fangled laws of "privacy" that really hide the facts that the large corporations have seized more than Hitler or Napoleon, and the suckers are thinking its good!

The thing doesn't surprise me much. Germans are very jealous of their privacy, and that this attitude finds it way through the laws looks quite normal to me.

 

I also think the whole story is ridiculous, at best.

 

But then, there are different ways to prove the world that a country is populated by assholes... and each contry (with no exceptions) has it's own laws.

 

At least in Germany you don't get questioned by the police because you're taking the picture of a bridge or a tower... plus, this affects the "use" of the photograph... and it also looks like that the title put under the picture was something like "this is how gays live in Munich", I wouldn't call it a nice title.

 

The line is quite blurred... and according to the press it's been a major cause of discussion in Germany.

This is an interesting case. Clearly Germans are really trying to protect more personal privacy than the U.S. And this interpretation isn't really strange or silly: Privacy is simply what everyone agrees it is; there's no "fundamental" definitino of what is and isn't private. The laws are merely formed by majority and if the paper violated German law, well, it should have known better.

 

I wonder, though, if those of you here who might argue towards unfettered photo/print rights in public are thinking about what that really means. To choose an unglamorous and common example, many people might pick their nose or scratch their crotch in public--even at a parade--if they don't think anyone who they care about will see them. That doesn't mean they'd be happy to have a picture of it splashed in the news.