No claim against Google for pixelation of a property

In its judgment of 11 June 2020, the 10th Civil Chamber of the Itzehoe Regional Court dismissed an action against Google Ireland Ltd. for pixelation of a property in the Google Earth mapping service.

Does Google have to pixelate properties?

The plaintiff sued for disguise by pixelation of a property he inhabited in the online service Google Earth. Google Earth, which can be accessed via the website https://www.google.de/maps, shows the world from above and can be viewed by anyone. This is not a "real-time" but a one-time representation. The picture shows the property from above in mediocre image quality. The roofs of the house and the garden are visible. People, windows and doors are not visible. When the address is entered into Google Maps, the marker lands on the street between four properties. An exact assignment to the property is therefore not possible. This only takes place when the coordinates are entered; then the marker points directly to the specific plot.

Does Google inadmissibly interfere with the general right of personality?

The Board did see an encroachment on the plaintiff's general right of personality under Article 2(1) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Basic Law, which also covers the right to withdraw into one's private sphere. In this case, however, it considered Google's interference to be justified. Thus, in the context of a balancing of conflicting rights protected by fundamental rights, it considered Google's right to freedom of information, which also covers the provision of information under Article 5(1) of the Basic Law, and the right to freedom to exercise one's profession under Article 12 of the Basic Law to be of higher value than the encroachment on the plaintiff's private sphere.

The Chamber justified this in particular by the fact that neither persons nor other details from the private life and lifestyle of the applicant and his family are recognisable in the photograph. There is no insight into the house itself or access points into the house, which could be interesting for burglars. Nor did the defendant "spy" on the property in order to obtain information about the plaintiff or his family and publish it. Rather, all that could be seen was what would have been seen by anyone from a plane or helicopter. Furthermore, the defendant did not link any of the plaintiff's data, such as his name with the address.

On the other hand, the defendant offers a service that enables anyone to get a picture of the world from above. A claim to pixelation of land without further encroachment on privacy in individual cases would lead to a rendering of the service useless. The public interest in obtaining information about this service had to be taken into account within the framework of Article 5 of the Basic Law.

The judgement is not legally binding (as of: 12.06.2020)

Source: Press release of the Itzehoe Regional Court of 12.06.2020, Dr Frederike Milhoffer, Press Spokesperson

Seal