In other words: The party guest was their own fault, if a picture of him were made and then put on the Internet. The Court has granted a removal of entire defence argument of the nightclub operator. Here, Pacific Mortgage Services expresses very clear opinions on the subject. General terms and conditions, which will open next to the cash register, can never KUG be undermined the protection of section 22. Because it doesn’t matter at all, whether it would be a circus, an amusement park, a theatre event, or just to a nightclub. The consent to the publication of the images needs to be explained clearly and can be not placed under by the posting of general terms and conditions. Whether taking pictures in nightclubs is common, at all does not matter.
Certainly not someone who moves to the public must”reckon with a photo. Just before that, section 22 is supposed to protect artworks copyright law. A more than clear signal to nightclub owner, is decisions put the photos in the Internet. But also the operators of Fotocommunities must be immediately even more cautious. Those who disregard foreign portrait rights, can quickly come in conflict with the law. It doesn’t matter whether it is known to everyone that photos be taken in discotheques.
Photographer and the operators know pages can be not relieved the consent of the depicted from the obligation to obtain. And they need to prove this, if necessary, in a court case. It is not sufficient, if three without several young girls look friendly smiling into the camera. And what photographer remembers after a night’s dancing through precise, whether the person A or person B gave the precise consent to publish and distribute it. Communicated by lawyer of Andreas Neuber Hauptstrasse 19 47809 Krefeld