Case

With a strong telephoto lens, a paparazzo took a photograph of a famous princess, sitting in the garden of her private villa together with her new lover and her little son. The picture was published on the cover of a tabloid, under the heading: ‘The Princess' New Family’.

1. (a) Can the princess skim off the profits that the magazine earned due to the publication of her photograph? If yes, is the magazine under a duty to disclose the necessary information?

2. (b) Would it make a difference if the princess was not sitting at home, but in the back garden of a countryside restaurant?

Discussions

Austria

Operative rules

Taking a photograph with a strong telephoto lens could qualify as an intrusion into the princess' right to privacy and intimacy, which may entitle the princess to sue the paparazzo for the forbearance of the further taking of photographs, destruction of the negatives and compensation of damage. She may also sue the owner/publisher of the magazine for damages, but this will not include skimming off the magazine's profit.

Descriptive formants

The OGH pointed out in the ‘Vranitzky case’ that even public figures have a right to privacy and intimacy. The princess sitting in the garden of her private villa (situation (a)) or in the back garden of a countryside restaurant (situation (b)) with her new lover and her little son are both private acts.