Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:59:00.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Headwind from Europe: The New Position of the German Courts on Personality Rights after the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Corinna Coors

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In Germany, as in the U.S., the relationship between protection of privacy and freedom of expression has been subject of many decisions. In the U.S. a right of privacy was famously conjured out of common law precedents by Warren and Brandeis. Over the course of a century, it developed into a right of publicity, which gave celebrities the power to prevent the commercial use of their names, endorsements, images, voices, and other attributes of personality by unauthorized third parties. In defining such a right, much attention has been focused on separating what is commercially unacceptable from what is desirable free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It has also been important to settle the duration of such rights. Publicity rights as a commercial value of a person's identity are therefore well established in the U.S., although state laws vary widely as to the extent of protection. In Germany, due to the constitutional background of the personality right, the balance between public and private interests still operates differently. After the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2004 convicted the German Federal Republic of violating the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Fundamental Freedoms, the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof—BGH) took the opportunity to think over its previous position about image rights. Three judgments were examined by the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht—BVerfG) and one of them was reversed.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2010 , pp. 527 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 In the US the right of publicity gained actual significance in the increasing commercial use of baseball statistics. See C.B.C. Distrib. & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

2 See Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 et. seq. (1890); Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190 (1905).Google Scholar

3 See Haelan Lab., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (1953); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 564 (1977).Google Scholar

4 See U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”); see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 849 et. seq. (5th ed. 1984); J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights Of Publicity And Privacy § 1:10 (2008).Google Scholar

5 See Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Shaw Family Archives Ltd. V. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D. N.Y. 2007).Google Scholar

6 Both the American Bar Association and the International Trademark Association have formulated a model statute, that, if enacted, would create a Federal Right of Publicity. A Federal Right could address some of the problems inherent in a Right of Publicity derived from State Law. Such problems include law uncertainty, instability and the possibility for plaintiffs to engage in forum shopping to maximize their rights. See the draft of the International Trademark Association, available at http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285&Itemid=153&getcontent=5.Google Scholar

7 The BVerfG must prevent or correct a violation of international law by national courts, such as the incorrect application and the non-compliance with international law. As the Convention contributes to an enhancement of a joint European development of fundamental rights, the Federal Constitutional Court observes the compliance with rights of the Convention in particular, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/01, Oct. 14, 2004, 111 BVerfGE 307 [hereinafter Görgülü], a decision in which the Constitutional Court made very fundamental remarks on the relationship between international law, especially laid down by the ECHR, and national law, especially with respect to the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany. For further analysis, see Matthias Hartwig, Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights, 6 Germ. L.J. 869, 869–94 (2005).Google Scholar

8 See Richard S. Robinson, Preemption, the Right of Publicity and a New Federal Statute, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 183, 201–02 (1998); Eugene Salomon, Note, The Right of Publicity Run Riot: The Case for a Federal Statute, 60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1179, 1186 (1987); Eric J. Goodman, A National Identity Crisis: The Need For a Federal Right of Publicity Statute, 9 J. Art & Ent. L. 227 (1999).Google Scholar

9 Horst-Peter Götting et al, Handbuch Des Persönlichkeitsrechts, § 1, n.4 (2008).Google Scholar

10 Michael Gerlinger, Sports Image Rights in Germany, in Sports Image Rights In Europe § 119 et. seq. (Ian S. Blackshaw & Robert C.R. Siekmann eds., 2005); for an overview of the American right of privacy, see Warren, supra note 2, at 193 et. seq.; Keeton, supra note 4, at 849 et. seq.; McCarthy, supra note 4, at § 1:10 et. seq‥ Google Scholar

11 See Kunsturhebergesetz [KUG-German Copyright Act] Jan. 9, 1907, § 22 (“Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.”) (Portraits must only be offered to the public or placed in circulation with the consent of the portrayed individual).Google Scholar

12 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 ZR 211/53, May 25, 1954, 13 BGHZ 334 [hereinafter Schacht-Briefe].Google Scholar

13 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 ZR 151/56, Feb. 14, 1958, 26 BGHZ 349 [hereinafter Herrenreiter].Google Scholar

14 See Johannes Koendgen, Haftpflichtfunktionen Und Immaterialschaden Am Beispiel Von Schmerzensgeld Und Gefaehrdungshaftung (Schriften Zum Buergerlichen Recht) 30, 55 (1976); KOMMENTAR ZUM BUERGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH, §§ 241–432, 249 (Theodor Soergel ed., 1999).Google Scholar

15 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 ZR 49/97, Dec. 1, 1999, 143 BGHZ 214 [hereinafter Marlene Dietrich].Google Scholar

16 Alexander Bruns, Access to Media Sources in Defamation Litigation in the United States and Germany, 10 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l. L. 283 et. seq. (2000); Gary M. Ropski & Marc S. Cooperman, Schadensersatz in Rechtsstreitigkeiten über geistiges Eigentum in den Vereinigten Staaten, Grur Int. 411 (1990).Google Scholar

17 The counter-statement is an explanation by the person affected by the publication which contradicts the published article. The availability of counter-statements, based on the states’ (Bundesländer) press and media codes, disclaimers, and corrections have proven effective for most cases and the issue of a counter-statement can be disposed of without necessarily going to full trial. The courts can grant an injunction against further publication. If, however, publication only of a counter-statement from the plaintiff is insufficient to remove the intrusion, the infringed person may cumulatively claim for a full retraction of an untrue statement. For a comparative study on defamation remedies in Germany and the U.S., see Bruns, supra note 16, at 283 et. seq.; for a general comparative analysis, see Basil S. Markesinis & Nico Nolte, Some Comparative Reflections on the Right of Privacy of Public Figures in Public Places, in Privacy and Loyalty 113, 127 et. seq. (Peter Birks ed., 1997); for more on the German claim for a counterstatement or retraction, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvL 20/81, Feb. 8, 1983, 63 BVerfGE 131, 142; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1/84, Nov. 4, 1986, 73 BVerfGE 118, 201; Walter Seitz et al., Der Gegendarstellungsanspruch: Presse, Film, Funk und Fernsehen (3d ed., 1998).Google Scholar

18 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 6 ZR 56/94, Nov. 15, 1994, 128 BGHZ 1 [hereinafter Caroline I]; Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 6 ZR 332/94, Dec. 5, 1995, 131 BGHZ 334 [hereinafter Caroline II].Google Scholar

19 See, e.g.,Oberlandesgericht Hamburg [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 3 U. 60/93, Jul. 7, 1996, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2870, 2873 (1993); Oberlandesgericht Hamm [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 3 U 168/03, Apr. 2, 2004, Grur-RR 970, 974 (2004) (TV Total); Oberlandesgericht Ansbach [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 3 O 380/96, Aug. 30, 1996, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 978 (1997).Google Scholar

20 Von Hannover v. Germany, 2004-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 294.Google Scholar

21 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 6 ZR 15/95, Dec. 19, 1995, 131 BGHZ 332 [hereinafter Caroline III].Google Scholar

22 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 410/94, Nov. 14, 1995 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (Njw) 593 (1996); [hereinafter Abschiedsmedaille]; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (Njw) 402 (1989) [hereinafter Boris Becker].Google Scholar

23 See Horst Neumann-Duesberg, Bildberichterstattung über absolute und relative Personen der Zeitgeschichte, JuristenZeitung (JZ) 114 (1960); Gerhard Schricker, Urheberrecht (3d ed., 2006); KUG §§ 23 & 60; Caroline III. Google Scholar

24 See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Hamburg [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 3 U 284/97, June 11, 1998, ZUMRR 122, 125 (1999) [hereinafter Backstreet Boys]; Boris Becker. Google Scholar

25 See, e.g., Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 303/03 (Sept. 28, 2004), http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=2004-9-28&nr=30659&pos=14&anz=19. BGH Urt. v. 28.09.2004, VI ZR 302/03, VI ZR 303/03 and VI ZR 305/03 (Caroline's daughter); Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 11 U 6/03, (Sept. 2, 2003), http://www.aufrecht.de/index.php?id=3043.Google Scholar

26 See: BGH AfP 1996, 138 (Caroline's son); Caroline III. Google Scholar

27 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 653/96, Dec.15, 1999, 101 BVerfGE 361.Google Scholar

28 Id. Google Scholar

29 See European Convention on Human Rights art. 8 § 1, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”). One countervailing right is the freedom of expression, which in turn is guaranteed by art. 10 of the Convention.Google Scholar

30 See, e.g., Andreas Heldrich, Zur Rechtsprechung–Persönlichkeitsschutz und Pressefreihiet nach der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2634 (2004); Roger Mann, Auswirkungen der Caroline- Entscheidung des EGMR auf die forensische Praxis, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3220 et. seq. (2004)Google Scholar

31 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 13/06, 14/06, 50/06, 51/06, 52/06, 53/06, (Mar. 6, 2007) http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=39434&pos=0&anz=1; Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 243/06, Jul. 1, 2008, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3138 (2008) (Abgestuftes Schutzkonzept II); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. VI ZR 164/06 (Jul. 3, 2007), http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=2007-7-3&nr=40906&pos=11&anz=13; see also Christian Teichmann, Abgestuftes Schutzkonzept – Abschied von der absoluten Person der Zeitgeschichte, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1917 (2007); Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert, Die Entwicklung des Presse- und Äuβerungsrechts in den Jahren 2005–2007, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2551–58 (2008).Google Scholar

32 See Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No. 6 U 209/07, Apr. 8, 2009, 12 Grur-RR 415 (2009); Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [OLG-Higher Regional Court], Case No 2-03 O 179/09, Jun. 25, 2009, available at http://openjur.de/u/31347-2-03_o_179-09.html; Goetting, supra note 9, at § 12.Google Scholar

33 Horst-Peter Götting et al, Handbuch Des Persönlichkeitsrechts, § 12 (2008); Thomas Dreier & Gernot Schulze, Urheberrechtsgesetz: UrhG § 23 (2008).Google Scholar

34 See Caroline's Son, supra note 26, at n.1.Google Scholar

35 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1602/07, Feb. 26, 2008, 120 BVerfGE 180.Google Scholar

36 See Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riehm, Die Caroline II—Entscheidung des BVerfG—ein Zwischenschritt bei der Konkretisierung des Kooperationsverhältnisses zwischen den verschiedenen Gerichten, Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 20–26 (2009); Walter Frenz, Recht am eigenen Bild für Prinzessin Caroline, 2008 NJW 3102; Stefan Muckel, Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht Prominenter und Pressefreiheit, 2009 Juristische Arbeitsblatter (JA) 156 (Anm. zum Caroline-Urteil des BVerfG); Nadine Klass, Die Bildberichterstattung über das Privat- und Alltagsleben Prominenter, Anmerkung zum BVerfG, Beschluss v. 26. Februar 2008, 1 BvR 1602/07, 1BvR 1606/07, 1BvR 1626/07, 5 Zum 432–35 (2008).Google Scholar

37 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR L 134/92 & I 2159/92, Oct. 12, 1993, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3047 (1993).Google Scholar

38 For an examination of the increasing power and significance of the ECHR, see Matthias Knauff, Das Verhältnis zwischen Bundesverfassungsgericht, Europäischem Gerichtshof und Europäischem Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, 9 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 533–42 (2010). For an analysis of the relationship between the BVerfG and the ECJ, see Ulrich Preis & Felipe Temming, Der EuGH, das BVerfG und der Gesetzgeber—Lehren aus Mangold II, 4 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA) 185–98 (2010).Google Scholar

39 See Hoffmann-Riehm, supra note 36, at 26; Klass, supra note 36, at 432.Google Scholar

40 Karlsruhe stärkt Presserecht, Speigel Online, 13 Mar. 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,542118,00.html.Google Scholar

41 See the report in Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14 Apr. 2010, available at http://archiv.sueddeutsche.apa.at/sueddz/index.php?id=A47082843_OGTPOGWPOPPRORGSHRPAGOHWOHTGRCPHECRE.Google Scholar

42 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH-Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 6 ZR 75/08, Feb. 2, 2009.Google Scholar

43 For an analysis of the graded protected concept, see Teichmann, supra note 31; Seelmann-Eggebert, supra note 31, at 2551, 2556.Google Scholar

44 For a general examination of the relationship of cooperation between the courts, see Hoffmann-Riehm, supra note 36, at 20–26.Google Scholar

45 See German Press Code, drawn up by the German Press Council in collaboration with the Press association and presented to Federal President Gustav W. Heinemann on Dec. 12, 1973 in Bonn (2006), available at http://ethicnet.uta.fi/germany/german_press_code; see also http://www.aipce.net for information on “The Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe – AIPCE” which was founded on June, 10, 1999 in London. The AIPCE is an alliance of the German Press Council and other voluntary media self regulation organizations in Europe with the aim to uphold the freedom of the press. The press councils in the different countries in Europe work together to observe the basic rules of fair and clean journalism and their own professional principles.Google Scholar