Court case VI ZR 402/24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2026)

A well-known German singer (the data subject) was secretly photographed by a press photographer while on a walk with her daughter and her mother in the city centre of Munich in May 2022. The photographer sold these images to various news outlets, including Bild, RTL, Freizeitwoche, and Freizeit Revue. Following an unsuccessful warning letter, the defendant was prohibited by a preliminary injunction from displaying or distributing the data subject's images. The data subject filed a lawsuit against the photographer and claimed at least €10,000 in damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. Alternatively, she based her claim on national provisions, stating the photographer had violated her right of personality. The court of first instance granted the lawsuit regarding monetary compensation on the grounds of a particularly serious violation of the data subject’s right of personality resulting from the taking and the distribution of the images. Upon appeal by the photographer, the appellate court dismissed the lawsuit. The data subject appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Justice. The Federal Court of Justice upheld the appellate court’s decision and dismissed the data subject’s appeal. Neither Article 82 GDPR nor the national provisions on the general right of personality could give rise to a claim for monetary compensation in the present case. The court held that the taking and the disclosure of the images constituted processing of personal data within the meaning of the GDPR. However, these processing operations did not need to be assessed against the substantive requirements of the GDPR – according to the court, they constituted processing for journalistic purposes and fell under the exemption in Article 85(2) GDPR. Consequently, the data subject’s claim for damages could not be based on Article 82(1) GDPR. The court interpreted the provisions governing data processing for journalistic purposes in its judgment broadly in light of the case law of the CJEU. It could be left open which federal state’s provisions on media privilege were applicable to the photographs at issue, as the taking and the distribution of the images constituted journalism within the meaning of these provisions in any German state. In addition, the court held that responsibility for the editorial content of publications rests solely with the press. A person who provides photographic material to the press is therefore generally not responsible for the content of editorial pieces created on that basis. Finally, the court concluded that the data subject’s right to her own image and right to privacy were affected by being photographed. However, the freedom of the press and the photographers freedom of occupation outweighed these interests, which precluded a claim for compensation based on the data subject’s right of personality.