May owner and dog be photographed without being asked?
In the age of the smartphone, the shutter button is quick to press. A photo is taken in no time – but are you actually allowed to photograph other people's dogs and their owners just like that? A recent case shows the limits: a self-appointed „guardian of order“ had made it his mission to systematically hunt down dog owners in a nature reserve who breached the requirement to keep dogs on a lead.
He secretly photographed the violations and reported them meticulously to the authorities – complete with photographic evidence, of course. Within a week he thus denounced 35 „offenders“ who had no idea of the pictures until the fine notice landed in their letterbox.
Lawsuit for violation of personality rights
The dog owners concerned would not stand for this and took legal action against the notices and the photographer. Their reasoning: their personality rights, specifically the „right to one's own image“, had been violated. According to this principle, people may not be photographed without their consent – certainly not for surveillance purposes by private individuals.
The case went to court, and the judges laid down the law: it is not a citizen's business to enforce public order on their own initiative. The „deputy sheriff“ was forbidden from photographing; in the event of a breach he now faces a fine of up to €5,000.
No systematic surveillance by private individuals
The court gave clear reasons for the ruling: photographing constitutes an interference with the right to one's own image protected by the German Civil Code (BGB). While one must expect to be seen by others in public, one by no means has to tolerate anyone deliberately taking pictures.
The red line was clearly crossed here:
- Usurpation of official authority: private individuals are not authorities. Citizens may not arrogate to themselves the function of state bodies in maintaining public order. That is an indispensable principle in a state governed by the rule of law.
- Targeted surveillance: when weighing up the interests, the court considered it particularly serious that the photos were not taken by chance, but were made deliberately and systematically („quasi in place of the authorities“).
The secret, systematic surveillance of dog owners thus constitutes an abuse of personality rights. An important ruling for data protection in everyday life.
Our daily inspiration is the special moments with our dogs. Here we share this enthusiasm and invite you to become part of the DOG FIT community on our social media channels.
The content of the articles is for general information purposes only and does not replace diagnosis or treatment by a veterinarian. This information does not constitute medical advice and should not be construed as such.
