Employee Photographs May Only Be Published with Express Consent

Pursuant to § 22 of the KUG, images of employees may only be published with their consent. This consent must be given in writing. Consent given by an employee without restriction does not automatically expire upon termination of the employment relationship. However, it can be revoked if a plausible reason is provided.

The plaintiff entered the service of the defendant in the summer of 2007; the defendant operates a climate and refrigeration technology company with approximately 30 employees. In the autumn of 2008, the plaintiff provided written consent for the defendant to film him as part of the workforce and to use and broadcast these recordings for public relations purposes. Subsequently, the defendant produced an advertising film in which the plaintiff's person is recognizably depicted twice. The video could be accessed and viewed from the defendant's internet homepage. The employment relationship between the parties concluded in September 2011. In november 2011, the plaintiff declared the revocation of his 'possibly' granted consent and requested the defendant to remove the video from the internet within 10 days. The defendant complied – with reservation – at the end of January 2012. The plaintiff demands the cessation of further publication and compensation for pain and suffering.

The action was partially unsuccessful before the Labor Court and entirely unsuccessful before the Regional Labor Court. The plaintiff's appeal to the Eighth Senate was unsuccessful. Assuming the depictions of the plaintiff in the video required his consent under § 22 KUG, the defendant had obtained it. Furthermore, the requirement for written consent, stemming from the employee's right to informational self-determination, was met in the plaintiff's case. His unrestricted written consent did not automatically expire with the termination of the employment relationship. A subsequent revocation was generally possible; however, the plaintiff did not provide a plausible reason for this contrary exercise of his right to informational self-determination. Therefore, he cannot prohibit further publication and would not have his personal rights violated by it.