No violation of personality rights in reporting on pornographic performance

Must a former pornographic actor tolerate press reports on this fact, or does such reporting constitute a violation of the actor's privacy and intimate sphere? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now decided this question at the final instance.

The sculptor and life partner of actress Katja Riemann appeared in a total of eight times as a performer in
pornographic film productions. In the process, his image appeared on the cover of one of the pornographic films. His civil name Raphael Beil was not mentioned in the films.

This 'youthful indiscretion' of the sculptor remained undiscovered for many years until the actress introduced the sculptor as her boyfriend at an awards ceremony. Promptly, a publisher dug up this delicate fact and published an article in its magazine "At a Glance" revealing Mr. Beil's pornographic past.

Against this, the sculptor now defended himself in court, arguing that the magazine's revelation had violated his general right to personality. The Regional Court of Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin) initially ordered the publisher to cease and desist.

Court decision

Byjudgment of 25.10.2011 – Az. VI ZR 332/09 – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) reversed the decision of the Regional Court of Berlin.

Anyone who appeared recognisably as a performer in pornographic films must tolerate press reports about it. The sculptor Raphael Beil, whom actress Katja Riemann presented as her life partner in 2007, must therefore tolerate reports about his earlier appearances in pornographic films. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) emphasised that commercial pornographic films are precisely intended to come to the attention of the interested public.

This assessment is not contradicted by the fact that Mr. Beil is not named in the pornographic films. For he is identifiable to the public through the depiction of his person, especially his face.

Conclusion

Appearances in films, even of a pornographic nature, must be attributed to the sphere open to the public due to the conscious commercial exploitation of the film material. Performers can therefore not rely on their right to an intimate sphere in order to prevent reporting on the pornographic film in connection with their name.

However, the assessment would be different if the pornographic footage had been private films. These would not be intended for the public and would thus belong to the private and intimate sphere of the individual.