BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 27 June 2017). Furthermore, the Court does not fail to recognise that the right to private life, as protected under Article 8 of the Convention, may make it necessary to impose on press organs an obligation to blur the image of an individual depicted in its publication (see, for example, Bremner, cited above, §§ 80-85, and, mutatis mutandis, Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland, no. 21830/09, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2015). 39. That being said, the Court can agree with the domestic courts’ starting-point that the omission of certain parts of the CCTV footage and the content of the voice-over accompanying the video were factors to be taken into consideration when balancing the competing rights of the applicant company and P. (compare Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 94, and Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3), nos. 66298/01 and 15653/02, §§ 46-47, 13 December 2005). 40. However, the argument regarding the shortened version of the videofootage applies only to the first publication. The video-footage published with the second article two days later was longer and did depict D.’s aggressive behaviour towards the staff at the nightclub (see paragraph 7 above). 41. Crucially, the Court notes that, on the one hand, not only was the injunction related to both previous publications but also to any future publication of the unpixelated CCTV footage and, on the other hand, the arguments linked to the voice-over are not such as to support the domestic courts’ decisions ordering the applicant company to cease publication of the unedited video-footage, regardless of the accompanying coverage. 42. The Court observes in this connection that the Court of Appeal explained the injunction against any future unedited CCTV footage by referring to the need for P.’s prior consent under section 22(1) of the Copyright (Arts Domain) Act (see paragraph 18 above), even if he were to be portrayed in a more positive light than in the previous publication. With positive coverage, the footage could no longer be considered to be portraying an aspect of contemporary society (see paragraph 13 above). The Court cannot accept such general reasoning. The mere fact that the use of force by the police is not portrayed in a negative way does not mean that its coverage in the media should cease to enjoy any protection. Taking into account the public interest in the coverage of the use of force by State agents (see paragraph 31 above and the case-law quoted in paragraph 34 above) and the potentially dissuasive effect that the obligation to blur the images of police officers involved in an operation would have on the exercise of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression (see paragraph 44 below), there is a need to balance the competing rights involved (see paragraph 35 above), which in the present case the domestic courts failed to do in respect of any future unedited CCTV footage. 11