The German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that spouses of celebrities who are not themselves in the public eye do not have to “automatically” tolerate the media reporting on them in the course of reporting on their celebrity spouses, identifying them with details such as their name, age, or occupation.
The case
A doctor who was not in the public eye married an internationally known model. A major tabloid newspaper reported on the “secret wedding,” naming details such as the doctor’s name, age, occupation, and place of work. The doctor fought back, citing his general right to privacy. He was vindicated by the Federal Court of Justice after the regional court upheld his claim, and the higher regional court dismissed it.
The decision in brief
The German Federal Court of Justice clarified that family events such as weddings are generally considered private matters – even if a marriage has legal consequences that affect the public sphere. Although the press is allowed to report on celebrities, their non-celebrity relatives continue to enjoy independent protection of their personal rights.
In this specific case, the plaintiff was clearly identifiable by the mention of his full first name, the initial of his last name, his age, profession, and place of residence, as well as information about his children in the article. This constituted an infringement of his general right of personality, even though the article primarily dealt with his prominent wife.
In weighing up the freedom of the press against the protection of privacy, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the doctor’s interests outweighed the former. This was because there was little public interest in him as a person: he was not a well-known figure himself and had not previously appeared in public with his prominent wife. The reporting served primarily to satisfy curiosity, not to provide serious information to the general public.
Although the media are generally allowed to publish entertaining articles, the less informative they are for the public, the greater the protection of the privacy of those concerned. Since this was also a private wedding celebration with only the closest family members and outside the public eye, the plaintiff, who had not exposed himself or the wedding to the public, did not have to accept being identified in the reporting.
Practical notes:
