ARTICLE
3 September 2024

Decision By German Higher Regional Court Koblenz: Consent For Publication Of Interview Not Revocable

KG
K&L Gates

Contributor

At K&L Gates, we foster an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to diligently combine the knowledge and expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry, capital markets participants, and ambitious middle-market and emerging growth companies. Our lawyers also serve public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals. We are leaders in legal issues related to industries critical to the economies of both the developed and developing worlds—including technology, manufacturing, financial services, health care, energy, and more.
On 31 July 2024 the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz (Oberlandesgericht Koblenz) has rejected an appeal to a verdict of the Regional Court of Koblenz (Landgericht Koblenz) for deletion...
Germany Privacy
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On 31 July 2024 the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz (Oberlandesgericht Koblenz) has rejected an appeal to a verdict of the Regional Court of Koblenz (Landgericht Koblenz) for deletion of an interview published on YouTube, due to lacking a prospect of success (case number 4 U 238/23).

In this lawsuit, the plaintiff requested deletion of four business-related interview videos of him with the defendant which were uploaded to YouTube in 2019 and 2020, with the plaintiff's consent. Later in 2020, the plaintiff revoked his consent.

The Landgericht had rejected the claim considering the revocation of the consent not valid. Under the German Act on Copyright in Works of Art and Photographs (Kunsturhebergesetz – KUG) consent for publication of an individual's likeness in media can only be revoked in exceptional cases, namely, if the individual circumstances when giving consent have materially changed. Such material reason was not asserted by plaintiff. The court expressly held that Art. 7(3) GDPR did not justify a different result on the question of consent, due to the unity of the legal regime and the lex specialis character of the KUG.

The Oberlandesgericht Koblenz has now confirmed the verdict of the Landgericht. In the context of GDPR applicability, the court also stressed that the claim for deletion is not justified because the defendant could rely on a legal basis other than consent (Art. 17(1) b) GDPR), namely, a (factual) business relationship between the parties in the meaning of Art. 6(1) b) GDPR.

Prior to the GDPR entering into force, the KUG was applied rather broadly for all types of publication, even if mainly for commercial and marketing purposes as is the case here. Since GDPR entered into force in 2018, it has been mainly argued that such application of the KUG circumventing GDPR principles was only possible for traditional media publications due to the limited scope of the opening clause in Art. 85(2) GDPR. The Koblenz courts have now contested this view and continue to apply the more favorable provisions of the KUG.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More