BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 14. By a decision of 3 August 2017, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept a constitutional complaint by the applicant company for adjudication, without providing reasons. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I. THE CIVIL CODE 15. Article 823 § 1 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) provides that anyone who, acting intentionally or negligently, unlawfully violates the life, physical integrity, health, liberty, property or similar rights of others is required to afford redress for any damage arising in consequence. 16. Under Article 1004 of the Civil Code, where another person’s property is damaged otherwise than by removal or illegal retention, the owner may require the perpetrator to cease the interference. If there are reasonable fears that further damage will be inflicted, the owner may seek an injunction. 17. A person’s personality rights enjoy the protection of Article 2 § 1 and Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), and are therefore recognised as “another similar right” within the meaning of Article 823 § 1 of the Civil Code (see Federal Court of Justice, no. I ZR 211/53, judgment of 25 May 1954). Furthermore, the scope of Article 1004 of the Civil Code has been extended by the Federal Court of Justice and the provision is applicable to violations of other rights protected by Article 823 of the Civil Code. Thus, it also protects a person’s right to reputation and to protection of his personality (see, for example, Federal Court of Justice, no. VI ZR 340/14, judgment of 28 July 2015). II. THE COPYRIGHT (ARTS DOMAIN) ACT 18. Section 22(1) of the Copyright (Arts Domain) Act (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie) provides that images can only be disseminated with the express consent of the person concerned. Section 23(1)(1) of the Act provides for exceptions to that rule, where the images portray an aspect of contemporary society, on condition that publication does not interfere with a legitimate interest of the person concerned (section 23(2)). 19. According to the established case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, images portraying an aspect of contemporary society are not limited to events of historical-political importance, but rather encompass all sorts of current affairs and thus all questions of general public interest (see, for example, Federal Court of Justice, no. VI ZR 67/08, judgment of 1 July 2008). 4