Background
The plaintiff, a very well-known singer in Germany, sued the publisher of the magazine SUPERillu over an article published in May 2022. The magazine’s cover featured photographs of the singer with her infant daughter, taken without her consent in Munich. The headline read: “PROUD MAMA [Singer’s First Name] shows her sweet baby! THE FIRST PHOTOS!”. The accompanying article featured more photos of the singer, her mother, and her baby during a private family outing, showing them walking, window shopping, and stopping at a cafe.
The singer argued that the photos, which were taken secretly using a powerful telephoto lens while she was being followed, constituted a serious violation of her personality rights, particularly the protected sphere of her relationship with her child. She sought at least €25,000 in monetary damages for the publication of the images. The publisher had already provided a cease-and-desist declaration prior to the lawsuit, promising not to republish the photos.
The trial court (Landgericht Berlin) initially awarded the damages to the singer. However, the appellate court (Kammergericht Berlin) reversed that decision and dismissed the claim, finding that while the publication was unlawful, it did not meet the high threshold for monetary compensation. The singer then appealed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Germany’s highest court for civil matters.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the singer’s appeal, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The court agreed that the publication of the photographs was an unlawful violation of the singer’s personality rights, but held that the violation was not severe enough to warrant monetary damages.
First, the BGH confirmed the unlawfulness of the publication. It found that the photos were not “portraits from the sphere of contemporary history” under German media law, which would have permitted their publication without consent. While the singer is a public figure and the topic of her new motherhood has some public interest, the article’s informational value was low. It primarily satisfied “the readership’s curiosity about the private life of the plaintiff with her child” rather than contributing to a debate of general interest. The court weighed this low public interest against the singer’s heightened privacy interests, which are strengthened by constitutional protections for parenthood (Art. 6 of the German Basic Law). The fact the photos depicted private family moments—despite being in a public place—and were taken by stalking, tipped the balance in favor of the singer’s privacy.
However, the court then explained that an unlawful publication does not automatically entitle the victim to monetary damages. According to its “long-standing jurisprudence,” damages are only awarded for a “severe infringement” where the harm “cannot be satisfactorily redressed in another way.” Here, the court found the infringement was not sufficiently severe. The photos were not degrading, did not damage the singer’s reputation, and in fact depicted her in a positive light. The accompanying article was also complimentary. The court concluded that the previously issued cease-and-desist declaration was a sufficient remedy to protect the singer’s rights. Therefore, no additional monetary compensation was necessary.
Key Takeaways
- Publishing unauthorized photos of a celebrity’s private family moments, even when taken in public, is likely an unlawful violation of personality rights in Germany if the story has low informational value for the public.
- The parent-child relationship receives special legal protection, enhancing a celebrity parent’s right to privacy against media intrusion.
- Monetary damages for personality rights violations are reserved for “severe” cases, such as those involving reputational harm or defamatory content. A merely unlawful publication of non-degrading “paparazzi” photos may not meet this high threshold.
- An injunction or a cease-and-desist declaration is considered a primary and often sufficient remedy for privacy violations, which can preclude an award of monetary damages.
Why It Matters
This decision from Germany’s highest civil court reinforces the distinction between an unlawful act and a compensable one in the context of media privacy violations. It clarifies for both celebrities and publishers that while the courts will protect the private lives of public figures, especially concerning their children, the remedy is not always financial. The ruling underscores that monetary damages are an exceptional tool for severe reputational attacks, not a standard penalty for every unlawful intrusion.
The case sets a significant precedent for paparazzi-style photojournalism in Germany. It affirms that even a clear violation of privacy rights will not automatically lead to a large payout if the content is not defamatory and an injunction against republication has been secured. This tempers the financial risk for publishers but still upholds the fundamental right to privacy for individuals in the public eye.