BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT at a nightclub in Bremen on 23 June 2013. The police had been called because a customer, D., had been behaving aggressively towards a staff member. 6. Together with the article, the applicant company published CCTV footage it had obtained from the club owner. The video showed several police officers standing around D. and bringing him down to the ground by force. One of the officers could be seen hitting D. with a police baton and kicking him while he was already immobilised on the floor. The video featured a voice-over, which included the following: “Shocking footage from a security camera. Four police officers force D. to the ground at the Bremen nightclub Gleis 9. The man is defenceless. Yet for one officer that clearly isn’t enough. He kicks the family man several times and hits him with his baton, again and again. This CCTV footage shows clearly how brutally the Bremen police deal with a supposed troublemaker. D. had allegedly been causing trouble and swearing. ...” 7. On 12 July 2013 the applicant company published a second article with the headline “How the night of the beating unfolded (Protokoll der Prügel-Nacht)”. Together with the article the applicant company published additional CCTV footage, depicting D.’s actions before the arrival of the police. The video shows D. throwing flyers at a staff member and making an aggressive gesture. 8. Subsequently, the story was picked up by several national newspapers. 9. P. was one of the police officers involved in D.’s arrest. The CCTV footage showed him assisting his fellow officers in bringing D. down to the ground. His face was clearly visible for several seconds. However, the video gave no indication that P. had used excessive force during the arrest. 10. On 18 July 2013 P.’s lawyer requested that the applicant company cease publication of the CCTV footage without his client’s face being blurred. When the applicant company refused, P. lodged a claim with the Oldenburg Regional Court. In addition to the injunction to cease publication of the unpixelated surveillance video, P. requested that the court find that the applicant company had to reimburse him for all damage he had sustained and might sustain in the future as a result of the publications. At the request of the court, he expanded on his submission, stating that on several occasions he had been confronted with critical comments about the documented incident by members of the public and by his children. A hearing was held on 12 March 2014. 11. On 14 May 2014 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to cease publication of the CCTV footage without P.’s face being blurred, while dismissing the remainder of P.’s claim. Referring to Articles 823 and 1004 of the Civil Code and sections 22(1) and 23 of the Copyright (Arts Domain) Act (see paragraphs 15-19 below), the court found, at the outset, that the CCTV footage showed P. in his official capacity as a police officer using force and thus portrayed an aspect of contemporary society (Bildnis aus dem Bereich der Zeitgeschichte). It further pointed out that the authenticity of the footage had never been questioned. The Regional Court emphasised 2