{"id":71678,"date":"2026-10-24T14:02:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-24T12:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=71678"},"modified":"2026-10-24T15:51:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-24T13:51:51","slug":"pixelated-face-recognisable-right-to-own-image","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/media-law-personal-rights\/pixelated-face-recognisable-right-to-own-image\/","title":{"rendered":"Pixelated, yet recognisable: why blurring a face rarely protects personality rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"IllustrationDER SPIEGEL runs a large photograph of the defendant in the Fabian murder trial: long blonde hair, jacket, build, a field in the background. Only her face has been broken up into coarse squares; beneath it are \u201cGina H.\u201d, the charge and the experts\u2019 assessments. Anyone who knows the woman will recognise her. So what are the pixels for?<\/em><\/p>\n

A screenshot of this SPIEGEL+ lead story made the rounds in our office this weekend, together with the remark that it was reassuring her face had been pixelated \u2013 that way nobody could possibly know who it was, and it was legally watertight into the bargain. The sarcasm is not unfounded. Pixelating faces is standard practice in German newsrooms, yet in legal terms it is surprisingly often a gesture without effect: it neither decides whether an image may be published nor turns an unlawful image into a lawful one.<\/p>\n

The background: since 28 April 2026, the jury chamber of the Regional Court of Rostock (Landgericht Rostock) has been trying a woman whom the public prosecutor accuses of killing eight-year-old Fabian from G\u00fcstrow on 10 October 2025. She denies the charge; according to current planning, the verdict is expected on 10 November 2026. Until a final conviction, she is presumed innocent. The teaser does not reveal where the photograph comes from or whether it was taken with her consent. This article therefore does not assess that particular image, but the question of what pixels actually achieve in law.<\/p>\n

Recognisable means recognisable to one\u2019s circle of acquaintances<\/h2>\n

The right to one\u2019s own image under Section 22 of the German Art Copyright Act (Kunsturhebergesetz, KUG)<\/a> protects likenesses, i.e. depictions in which a person can be recognised. The face is not required. According to the settled case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), it is sufficient that the person can be identified by features that emerge from the image and are specific to them, even if their face is barely visible or not visible at all. It is enough that they have good reason to assume they could be identified as the person depicted by a larger or smaller circle of acquaintances; a casual observer need not recognise them (BGH, judgment of 29 September 2020 \u2013 VI ZR 449\/19<\/a>, para. 19 \u2013 G20 summit). In the G20 case, body shape and posture, hairstyle and the shape of the face sufficed, although about half of the claimant\u2019s face was covered.<\/p>\n

Almost a year ago, the Regional Court of Berlin II (Landgericht Berlin II) applied this standard to pixelated photo reporting (judgment of 2 December 2025 \u2013 27 O 366\/25<\/a> eV). The images showed the victim of a violent crime, his face obscured but his hair colour and the rest of his body not. The chamber took the accompanying text into account: the time and place of the crime and the course of the proceedings were described so specifically that family, friends and business partners could identify the man. In the court\u2019s view, pixelation is not even capable of preventing an image from qualifying as a likeness as long as the text supplies further identifying features.<\/p>\n

Applying this standard to the lead photograph, little remains of the anonymisation. Hair, build and clothing are fully visible, as are the background and scenery, which give locals a further clue. The text gives her first name, initial, the charge and her role in the child\u2019s circle. Anyone who knows her from everyday life does not need her face. Incidentally, the abbreviation \u201cGina H.\u201d is nothing but the written version of the same block of pixels.<\/p>\n

May the press show a defendant before the verdict at all?<\/h2>\n

Whether a likeness may be published without consent is not decided by the pixels but by Section 23 KUG<\/a>: images from the sphere of contemporary history may be disseminated unless legitimate interests of the person depicted stand in the way. Criminal offences are part of current events. The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) has stressed that the public interest in information is all the stronger the more a crime stands out from ordinary criminality because of how it was committed or how serious its consequences were (BVerfG, order of 27 November 2008 \u2013 1 BvQ 46\/08<\/a> \u2013 \u201cwooden block\u201d case). The violent death of an eight-year-old, reported on nationwide for a year, sits at the top of that scale.<\/p>\n

The counterweight is the presumption of innocence. As long as there is no final judgment, it requires restraint, or at least balanced coverage; written reporting is subject to the rules on identifying reporting on suspicions (in German)<\/a>. In the \u201cwooden block\u201d case, the Federal Constitutional Court described the danger that a defendant\u2019s face may remain permanently linked with the horror of the crime in the minds of a wide public, even if he is ultimately acquitted. For that reason, it considered the criminal court\u2019s order to show the defendant only in pixelated form to be justifiable in summary proceedings.<\/p>\n

Another thought from that decision is of some interest for the Fabian case. The defendant had allowed himself to be filmed and had given interviews to the media before he became a suspect. The court did not consider this sufficient, because he had spoken as a witness rather than as an accused at the time. It expressly left open whether someone who deliberately faces the public as an accused largely loses this protection. According to media reports, the defendant in the Fabian case also gave an interview after the boy was found \u2013 likewise not as an accused at the time.<\/p>\n

How finely balanced such assessments are is illustrated by the Hamburg \u201cBlock trial\u201d. In July, the Regional Court of Berlin II held an unpixelated photograph of a co-accused family lawyer to be a permissible image of contemporary history (judgment of 14 July 2026 \u2013 27 O 237\/26<\/a> eV), whereas the Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Kammergericht, KG) had declared images of the same man unlawful in other proceedings two months earlier (judgment of 11 May 2026 \u2013 10 U 17\/26). Guideline 8.1 of the German Press Code (Pressekodex<\/a>) issued by the German Press Council (Deutscher Presserat) likewise calls for a case-by-case assessment and cites an exceptionally serious crime as a typical case of overriding public interest; factors to be considered include the stage of the proceedings, the strength of the suspicion and the extent to which those concerned have themselves sought publicity.<\/p>\n

If publication is unlawful, pixels will not save it<\/h2>\n

This leads to the real dilemma. If identifying photo reporting is permissible in the individual case, the pixels are not legally required. If it is impermissible, pixels only help where the person is in fact no longer recognisable afterwards. A field of coarse squares over the face in an otherwise unaltered portrait will generally not meet that requirement. In the version of Section 8 of the Press Code in force since March 2025, the Press Council has summed this up in a short formula: where anonymisation is required, it must be effective.<\/p>\n

Nor does a court order to pixelate shift this standard. Orders under the court\u2019s power to maintain order in the courtroom pursuant to Section 176 of the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG)<\/a> are addressed to those present in the courtroom and do not protect personality rights any further than Sections 22 and 23 KUG already do (BGH, judgment of 7 June 2011 \u2013 VI ZR 108\/10<\/a>). We reported at the time on this decision, under which BILD was allowed to show a convicted terrorist without pixelation (in German)<\/a>. For a photograph taken outside the courtroom, such an order is irrelevant anyway.<\/p>\n

The block of pixels is not entirely useless<\/h2>\n

Irony aside: the block of pixels does protect against that part of the audience who do not know the woman. This is precisely the effect the Federal Constitutional Court has in mind when it warns of a face becoming permanently associated with a crime in the minds of the wider public.<\/p>\n

For an injunction, however, this rarely helps the newsroom. If the person is recognisable to their circle of acquaintances and the publication is not covered by contemporary history, it must cease, pixels or no pixels. In the G20 case, the BGH did take into account in favour of the press that the claimant could only be identified by a comparatively small circle, but that case concerned an image that was barely recognisable anyway, in a context of considerable informational value. Pixelation makes a noticeable difference above all when it comes to monetary compensation. Under German law, this requires a serious violation of personality rights, and an image that only insiders can attribute reaches that threshold far less often than a face on the front page. The Regional Court of Berlin II likewise treated the special knowledge of a few insiders as a factor that reduces the weight of the interference, without eliminating recognisability.<\/p>\n

So the pixels change less about whether than about how much. And where it really hurts those affected \u2013 in the neighbourhood, at work or at the sports club \u2013 they change little.<\/p>\n

What does this mean for those affected and for newsrooms?<\/h2>\n

Anyone who recognises themselves despite pixelation should not be fobbed off with the argument that the face is unrecognisable. What matters is whether people from their own circle can identify the image, and that can be proven:<\/p>\n