Staff photos may only be published with consent

According to section 22 KUG, images of employees may only be published with their consent. This consent must be given in writing. An employee's consent given without restriction does not automatically expire at the end of the employment relationship. However, it can be revoked if a plausible reason is given.

The plaintiff had joined the services of the defendant, which operates an air conditioning and refrigeration company with about 30 employees, in the summer of 2007. In autumn 2008, the plaintiff gave his written consent for the defendant to make film recordings of him as part of the workforce and to use and broadcast them for its public relations work. The defendant then had a promotional film made in which the plaintiff's person is recognisably depicted twice. The video could be accessed and viewed from the defendant's internet homepage. The employment relationship between the parties ended in September 2011. In November 2011, the plaintiff declared the revocation of his "possibly" given consent and demanded that the defendant remove the video from the internet within 10 days. The defendant complied - with reservations - at the end of January 2012. The plaintiff demanded an injunction against further publication and damages for pain and suffering.

The action was partially unsuccessful before the Labour Court and completely unsuccessful before the Regional Labour Court. The plaintiff's appeal before the Eighth Senate was unsuccessful. Assuming that the images of the plaintiff in the video required his consent according to § 22 KUG, the defendant had obtained this. The requirement of written consent, which results from the employee's right to informational self-determination, was also fulfilled in the case of the plaintiff. His written consent, which was given without restrictions, did not automatically expire with the end of the employment relationship. A later revocation was possible in principle, but the plaintiff did not give any plausible reason for this contrary exercise of his right to informational self-determination. He could therefore not have further publication prohibited and would not have his right of personality violated by it.