{"id":9468,"date":"2020-06-11T11:31:17","date_gmt":"2020-06-11T10:31:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/?post_type=news&p=9468"},"modified":"2020-09-01T21:07:52","modified_gmt":"2020-09-01T20:07:52","slug":"artistic-freedom-vs-personal-rights","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/news\/artistic-freedom-vs-personal-rights","title":{"rendered":"Artistic Freedom vs. Personal Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Attorney Georg Huber <\/em>discusses two judgements in the art magazine stayinart<\/em>\u00a0(https:\/\/www.stayinart.com\/<\/a>) that illustrate how personal rights and the right to freedom of art can oppose and restrict each other.<\/p>\n

Download Rapunzel, Rapunzel<\/a><\/p>\n

Rapunzel, Rapunzel \u2013 take down my painting!
\n<\/strong>The right to artistic freedom vs personal rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The right to artistic freedom has beeen discussed here before (Kaleidoscope 2.16). Last time, the subject was the definition of the term “art” and the limits of artistic freedom.<\/p>\n

This freedom ends where it interferes disproportionately with the rights of third parties. These rights of third parties include – above all – personal rights, particularly human dignity. If the pursuit of art encroaches on these rights, which right is to be given preference has to be weighed up – the right to artistic freedom or personal rights.<\/p>\n

Just over a year ago, the German Federal Constitutional Court had to consider such a case.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2010 a freelance artist painted a girl with short hair and a bandage around her arm. The artist called the painting “Rapunzel 4”. The parents and the girl had agreed to the painting of the portrait.<\/p>\n

Three years later, the painting was shown in an art exhibition entitled “Fairytale Pictures”. The organiser printed a flyer with a short introduction to the exhibition and the pictures of the artist being shown. In it he called for ” a fitting and sensitive examination of her works and their themes of abuse, violence, abandonment and longing”. An article was subsequently published on the occasion of the exhibition with the picture of the girl and the statement that the subject of the exhibition was “16 paintings by the artist,\u00a0 dedicated to the themes of abuse and violence against children”.<\/p>\n

A short time later, the girl’s parents revoked their consent to publicly exhibit the portrait of their underage daughter entitled “Rapunzel 4”. The girl and her family had been brought into the focus of violence and abuse by the exhibition.<\/p>\n

In the end, the girl filed a lawsuit against the artist, as the latter insisted on displaying the painting.<\/p>\n

Both the competent local court and the regional court of Halle ruled in favour of the girl and prohibited the artist from “making the portrait public or distributing it in any form whatsoever to any third party”. The artist also had to remove the picture from her homepage. The courts were of the opinion that the girl’s right to personal dignity outweighed artistic freedom and that there was therefore good reason to revoke the originally granted consent to the picture being shown.<\/p>\n

The artist appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court on the grounds that she felt that her right to freedom of art had been infringed.<\/p>\n

Artistic freedom is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Article 5 (3) phrase 1 of the German Constitutional Law (GG) puts it like this: “Art and science, research and teaching are free”<\/em>. Article 17a of the Austrian Constitution provides similar provisions.<\/p>\n

But the Constitution also guarantees personal rights. Article 1 (1) of the Constitution states: “Human dignity is inviolable. All state authorities are obliged to respect and protect it<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

These two basic rights were opposed here, namely the artist’s right to exhibit her works on the one hand and the girl’s dignity and privacy on the other. In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court weighed both rights against each other and came to the conclusion that the rulings of the two lower courts were excessive and that the artist’s right to artistic freedom had been violated.<\/p>\n

First of all, the Federal Constitutional Court explained that personal rights are capable of restricting artistic freedom. The presentation of the picture in an exhibition on the subject of child abuse and violence affected the girl’s personal rights so severely that artistic freedom had to be withdrawn. Linking the portrait to these themes would in fact mean a risk of the still underage girl being harmed in personal and social terms.<\/p>\n

However, the comprehensive prohibition imposed by the lower courts on making the painting public or distributing it to any third party constitutes a particularly severe infringement of artistic freedom and therefore requires special justification. The scope of the prohibition on publication and distribution must be of a proportional nature.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht sah es in diesem Fall als unverh\u00e4ltnism\u00e4\u00dfig an, der K\u00fcnstlerin jegliche<\/em> Ver\u00f6ffentlichung des Portr\u00e4ts zu verbieten. Es w\u00e4re v\u00f6llig ausreichend, das Verbot nur in einem Kontext, der Assoziationen zu Missbrauch und Gewalt schafft, auszusprechen. Ein generelles Ausstellungsverbot geht schlicht zu weit. Das Recht auf Kunstfreiheit muss mit den Auswirkungen auf das Pers\u00f6nlichkeitsrecht in einen verh\u00e4ltnism\u00e4\u00dfigen Ausgleich gebracht werden. Hierf\u00fcr reicht es, nur die Ausstellung im verp\u00f6nten Kontext zu verbieten.<\/p>\n

Der Fall weckt Erinnerungen an ein Urteil des \u00f6sterreichischen Obersten Gerichtshofes (OGH) aus dem Jahr 2003. Der OGH urteilte nicht \u00fcber die verfassungsm\u00e4\u00dfige Abw\u00e4gung von Kunstfreiheit und Pers\u00f6nlichkeitsrechten, sondern befasste sich mit dem Recht am eigenen Bild, wie es \u00a7\u00a078 \u00f6sterreichisches Urheberrechtsgesetz normiert.[2]<\/a> Demnach d\u00fcrfen Bildnisse von Personen weder \u00f6ffentlich ausgestellt noch verbreitet werden, wenn dadurch berechtigte Interessen der Abgebildeten verletzt werden.<\/p>\n

Eine 25-j\u00e4hrige Frau arbeitete f\u00fcr einen Fotografen als Aktmodell und \u00fcbertrug ihm mit Vertrag unwiderruflich die Verwertungsrechte an den Fotos. Sie erhielt daf\u00fcr ein Honorar. Einige der Fotos wurden auch in Zeitungen, etwa der Kronen Zeitung, ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Etwa ein Jahr sp\u00e4ter untersagte das Model dem Fotografen die weitere Ver\u00f6ffentlichung ihrer Aktfotos und begr\u00fcndete dies mit einer \u00c4nderung ihrer Lebensumst\u00e4nde. Sie \u00fcbe jetzt einen Beruf in verantwortungsvoller Position aus, wolle sich demn\u00e4chst verloben und habe sich auch schon ironische Bemerkungen wegen der Fotos gefallen lassen m\u00fcssen. Durch die Ver\u00f6ffentlichung w\u00fcrde sie in ihren berechtigten Interessen und damit in ihrem Pers\u00f6nlichkeitsrecht verletzt. Der OGH gab ihr Recht.<\/p>\n

Die Richter meinten zwar, dass die ge\u00e4nderten Lebensumst\u00e4nde hier nicht ma\u00dfgeblich seien, weil solche \u00c4nderungen beim Abschluss des Vertrages mit dem Fotografen vorhersehbar waren. Deshalb rechtfertigte eine \u00c4nderung der Lebensumst\u00e4nde allein weder eine K\u00fcndigung des Modelvertrages noch den Entzug der Verwertungsrechte.<\/p>\n

Bei Aktfotos gelte aber anderes. Aktfotos betr\u00e4fen den Kern der Pers\u00f6nlichkeit. Es sei so, dass solche Fotos in der breiten \u00d6ffentlichkeit immer noch als peinlich empfunden und sich die meisten Personen nicht f\u00fcr die \u00d6ffentlichkeit nackt fotografieren lassen w\u00fcrden. Aus diesem Grund \u00fcberwiegten die Interessen des Aktmodels die Interessen des Fotografen. Das Model k\u00f6nne daher dem Fotografen die Ver\u00f6ffentlichung der Fotos verbieten. Der Fotograf hat allenfalls Anspruch auf Ersatz seiner Aufwendungen, unter Abzug der bis dahin erzielten Ertr\u00e4ge.<\/p>\n

Der OGH hat sich in seiner Entscheidung in keiner Weise mit der Kunstfreiheit auseinandergesetzt. Er betrachtete die Angelegenheit nur aus dem Blickwinkel des Pers\u00f6nlichkeitsrechtes und des Vertragsrechtes. Es w\u00e4re spannend zu wissen, wie der \u00f6sterreichische Verfassungsgerichtshof die Sache beurteilen w\u00fcrde, sollte ein solcher Fall 17 Jahre sp\u00e4ter vor ihm landen.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> \u00a0BVerfG vom 28. J\u00e4nner 2019, 1 BvR 1738\/16
\n[2]<\/a> OGH v. 16.12.2003, 4 Ob 211\/03p<\/p>\n

Mehr zum Thema:\u00a0https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/publikationen\/die-freiheit-der-kunst<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attorney Georg Huber discusses two judgements in the art magazine stayinart\u00a0(https:\/\/www.stayinart.com\/) that illustrate how personal rights and the right to freedom of art can oppose and restrict each other. Download Rapunzel, Rapunzel Rapunzel, Rapunzel \u2013 take down my painting! The right to artistic freedom vs personal rights The right to artistic freedom has beeen discussed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":4541,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":[],"categories":[131],"acf":[],"translations":{"de":9252,"en":9468},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/9468"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/9468\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4541"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawfirm.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}