Time and again, there are clashes between the public interest in reporting and the right to freedom of the press, as well as the personal rights of those affected. The boundaries here often seem unclear and vague. A dramatic accident in the Philippines led to yet another legal dispute over the limits of freedom of the press.
The case prompting the reporting and the Supreme Court's decision was a tragic accident: The plaintiff and her husband were spending their honeymoon in the Philippines. While riding in a taxi, the vehicle crashed off a bridge, and the husband was killed. An Austrian daily newspaper reported on the accident in print and e-paper editions and published pixelated images of the victim. Despite the pixelation, the plaintiff and her husband were clearly identifiable in the reports. The plaintiff considered this a violation of her personal rights.
Of key importance was the assessment of whether images may be published for reporting purposes if the persons depicted are recognizable. Section 78 of the Copyright Act (UrhG) stipulates that images of persons may neither be publicly exhibited nor otherwise distributed in a manner that makes them accessible to the public if doing so would violate the legitimate interests of the person depicted, or, if the person is deceased, of a close relative. In this context, the Supreme Court had to address the tension between freedom of the press and the protection of personality rights.
The court of first instance found a violation of image protection under Section 78 of the Copyright Act (UrhG) and granted the claim for injunctive relief, payment of non-material damages, and publication of the judgment. The appeal ruling amended the decision, ordering that the judgment be published only in the Austrian section of all (regional) editions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the plaintiff and her husband were clearly recognizable in the reporting – despite their pixelated faces. The Supreme Court clarified that the publication of the images did not have sufficient news value to outweigh the plaintiff's personal right to her own image. The reporting primarily served sensationalism. Especially with images of people, a careful balancing of the informational value against the personal interests worthy of protection must be carried out.
This ruling underscores the importance of protecting personal rights and demonstrates the courts' critical attitude toward sensationalist reporting. It confirms that when publishing images and personal stories, the media must carefully balance the personal rights of those affected with the media's interest in publication.
Supreme Court 08.10.2024, 6Ob118/24g
13.01.2025