Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- National reporters
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- Editorial note
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Mapping the legal landscape
- Part II Case studies
- 4 Case 1: The corrupt politician
- 5 Case 2: Convicted law professor
- 6 Case 3: The paedophile case
- 7 Case 4: An invented life story?
- 8 Case 5: A former statesman's family life
- 9 Case 6: A satirical magazine
- 10 Case 7: A snapshot of a person
- 11 Case 8: A paparazzo's telephoto lens
- 12 Case 9: Naked.Little.Girl.Com
- 13 Case 10: The late famous tennis player
- 14 Case 11: The popular TV presenter
- 15 Case 12: Copied emails
- 16 Case 13: Brigitte's diaries
- 17 Case 14: Tape recordings of a committee meeting
- 18 Case 15: ‘Light cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer’
- 19 Case 16: Doctor's non-disclosure of a foetal disease
- 20 Case 17: WAF – A gang of incompetents?
- Part III A common core of personality protection
- Index
12 - Case 9: Naked.Little.Girl.Com
from Part II - Case studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- National reporters
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- Editorial note
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Mapping the legal landscape
- Part II Case studies
- 4 Case 1: The corrupt politician
- 5 Case 2: Convicted law professor
- 6 Case 3: The paedophile case
- 7 Case 4: An invented life story?
- 8 Case 5: A former statesman's family life
- 9 Case 6: A satirical magazine
- 10 Case 7: A snapshot of a person
- 11 Case 8: A paparazzo's telephoto lens
- 12 Case 9: Naked.Little.Girl.Com
- 13 Case 10: The late famous tennis player
- 14 Case 11: The popular TV presenter
- 15 Case 12: Copied emails
- 16 Case 13: Brigitte's diaries
- 17 Case 14: Tape recordings of a committee meeting
- 18 Case 15: ‘Light cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer’
- 19 Case 16: Doctor's non-disclosure of a foetal disease
- 20 Case 17: WAF – A gang of incompetents?
- Part III A common core of personality protection
- Index
Summary
Case
Susan and Robert sold a photograph of their four-year-old daughter Lily, running naked on the beach, to a sun cream manufacturer. The photograph appeared in several magazines as part of an advertisement for the products of that firm. Kevin scanned the photograph and put it on the internet, on a site called ‘naked.little.girl.com’. Can Lily claim damages from Kevin? Is the internet provider liable?
Discussions
Austria
Operative rules
Lily has a claim against Kevin for the forbearance of future publication of her picture on the internet, abatement, publication of the courts findings and for compensation, as well as for a preliminary injunction. In respect of the access and host provider, Lily cannot sue for damages but has a claim for injunction.
Descriptive formants
The right to image (§ 78 UrhG; see Case 7) is not just restricted to adults but also applies to children.
The consent of both Susan and Robert as Lily's parents refers only to the publication of the naked photograph in magazines as an advertisement for certain suncare products. There seems to be nothing sinister about this type of publication. However, advertising a naked four-year-old girl on a website called ‘naked.little.girl.com’ appears to have a more sinister connotation. As far as the parents' consent (on Lily's behalf) is concerned, they have only given their consent for the publication of the photograph in a certain medium (magazines).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Personality Rights in European Tort Law , pp. 348 - 374Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010