BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT Moreover, the Court observes that, whereas there is no general rule under Article 8 of the Convention requiring that police officers should generally not be recognisable in press publications, there may be circumstances in which the interest of the individual officer in the protection of his or her private life prevails. This would be the case, for example, if publication of the image of a recognisable officer, irrespective of any misconduct, is likely to lead to specific adverse consequences in his or her private or family life. Therefore, domestic courts are called upon to balance the competing rights, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, including the content of the coverage and its consequences for the person concerned (see paragraphs 36 et seq. below). (iii) Method of obtaining the information and its veracity 36. The applicant company had obtained the CCTV footage from the owner of the nightclub (see paragraph 6 above). As set out by the Regional Court, the material was filmed in a public place and its authenticity had never been questioned (see paragraph 11 above). In addition, while P. did not choose to be recorded, the Court notes that the present case does not concern the use of hidden cameras (compare and contrast Bremner, cited above, § 76, and Alpha Doryforiki Tilerasi Anonymi Etairia v. Greece, no. 72562/10, §§ 59-69, 22 February 2018). (iv) Content and form of the publication 37. In their decisions, the domestic courts attached particular significance to the editorial presentation of the video-footage. In this connection, the Regional Court emphasised that the commentary portrayed P. as a violent thug in the eyes of the public (see paragraph 11 above) and the Court of Appeal pointed out that the publication of the CCTV footage had to be seen in the context with the accompanying voice-over (see paragraph 12 above). Furthermore, the domestic courts emphasised that the video which the applicant company had first published had only shown the police intervention but had omitted D.’s actions which had led to the police being called and that this had been done with the intention of amplifying the impression of an unnecessary use of force by the police in the viewers’ mind (see paragraphs 11-12 above). 38. The Court would begin by observing that the scope of coverage and the technique of reporting a given subject is a matter of journalistic freedom. It is neither for the Court nor for the domestic courts to substitute their own views for those of the press in this area. This freedom, however, is not devoid of responsibilities. The choices that journalists make in this regard must be based on their profession’s ethical rules and codes of conduct (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, §§ 138-39, and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 186, 10