Recht am eigenen Bild: Image Rights for Creators in Germany

If you film or photograph other people in Germany, the safe answer is simple: you usually need their consent before you publish the image. That is the rule under §22 KUG, and it matters just as much for creators filming on the street, at events, or in public places as it does in private settings.

The tricky part is that the law does not stop at a yes or no question. §23 KUG creates limited exceptions, background appearances are treated differently from the main subject, consent can be withdrawn, and GDPR can apply at the same time. If you create content for a living, understanding those differences is not optional.

‍

The short version

In Germany, the default rule is consent. If a person is clearly identifiable and is the main subject of the image, you should assume you need permission before publishing it. Only narrow exceptions allow publication without consent, and even then you still need to think carefully about privacy, context, and data protection.

‍

What §22 KUG actually says

Section 22 of the German Art Copyright Act, known as the Kunsturhebergesetz or KUG, is the core rule for image rights. It says portraits may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person portrayed.

That sounds straightforward because it is. If someone can reasonably be identified from the photo or video, and they are the focus of the shot, publication normally requires consent. For creators, that means the consent question starts before you post, not after someone complains.

The official text is here: §22 KUG on gesetze-im-internet.de.

‍

What §23 KUG allows without consent

Section 23 KUG sets out the exceptions. These are the situations where publication can be allowed without consent, but only if the specific conditions are met.

The most relevant exceptions for creators are these:

• Images from contemporary history
• Pictures in which the person appears only as an accessory next to a landscape or other location
• Images of gatherings, processions, and similar events
• Portraits that are not made to order, unless they would seriously infringe legitimate interests of the person shown

That last part is the key. Even where §23 KUG might seem to help you, publication is still blocked if it creates a serious intrusion into legitimate interests. So the law is not a free pass. It is a narrow exception with limits.

For the official text, see §23 KUG on gesetze-im-internet.de.

‍

Background people are not the same as the main subject

This is where a lot of creators get careless. A person in the background is not automatically safe just because they are not posed for the camera. The legal question is whether they are merely incidental or whether the image is really about them.

If the background person is just one small part of a larger scene, the accessory exception may apply. Think of a busy street, a crowd at a festival, or a city shot where people happen to be present. In those cases, the person is not usually the focus.

But if you zoom in, centre them, or make them visually important to the content, they stop being background. At that point, treat them like a main subject and get consent.

A good practical test is this: if you would not want the person to feel singled out when they see the final post, you probably should not publish it without permission.

‍

Public place does not mean public use

Creators often assume that because something happened in public, it can be published freely. That is not how German image rights work.

Being in public can matter, especially under §23 KUG, but public visibility is not the same as publication rights. A passer-by on a busy street may be incidentally captured. A stranger featured clearly in your reel is a different case entirely.

So the question is not only where you shot the content. It is what the audience is likely to see, who the focus is, and whether the person is identifiable.

‍

Consent should be specific, not vague

If you do get consent, make it clear what the person is agreeing to. Consent should cover the type of content, the intended publication channels, and whether the material may be reposted, clipped, or reused.

For creators, vague permission is a weak foundation. “Yeah, that’s fine” is not the same as informed consent for publication. If the content has commercial value or may be reused later, you want the scope of consent written down and easy to prove.

This is also where a separate consent workflow helps. Understanding how to structure those agreements clearly is part of building a professional creator business, and it connects directly to the broader question of why creators should own their fan relationships rather than leaving them to chance.

‍

Can consent be withdrawn?

Yes, but not always in the way people think. Consent can generally be withdrawn, and when it is, you may need to stop future publication or remove content where that is legally required.

The practical reality depends on the original scope of consent, the legal basis for publication, where the content appears, and whether other legal reasons support continued use. If the image has already been widely shared, withdrawal can become more complicated than simply deleting one post.

For creators, the safest move is to keep consent records, note when and how consent was given, and avoid relying on casual verbal approval. If someone later changes their mind, good records make the situation much easier to assess.

‍

GDPR can overlap with image rights

This is where a lot of creators get tripped up. Image rights under §22 and §23 KUG are one layer. GDPR is another.

If the person in the image is identifiable, you are dealing with personal data. That means the publication may also need a valid GDPR basis, plus the usual requirements around transparency, purpose limitation, and data minimisation.

In practice, that means you should not think of KUG and GDPR as competing rules. They can apply together. A post might be allowed under image-rights law but still raise GDPR concerns if you are processing or publishing personal data without a lawful basis.

For a wider look at how data protection obligations sit alongside content publishing, the Trust and Safety section of the MALOUM blog covers the compliance picture in more detail.

‍

What penalties or consequences can happen

The consequences are usually not limited to one angry message in your inbox. If you publish someone’s image without the right legal basis, the person may demand removal, object to continued use, and potentially pursue civil claims.

Depending on the situation, that can mean injunctions, damages, legal costs, and a messy content takedown process. If the image rights issue is tied to broader privacy or data protection problems, the risk becomes even more serious.

For creators, the real cost is often reputational as much as legal. One careless post can damage trust with subjects, collaborators, and audiences who expect you to handle content professionally.

‍

A practical workflow for creators

If you shoot people regularly, use a simple process:

• Ask first when the person is the clear subject
• Get written consent when the content will be published commercially or reused
• Treat background people as background only if they are truly incidental
• Avoid publishing identifiable close-ups without permission
• Keep consent records with the content file
• Remove or blur when in doubt

This does not make you slow. It makes you reliable.

‍

Where MALOUM fits in

For creators building a serious business, the legal side and the publishing side should never be separated. Clear consent habits protect your content library, your relationships, and the trust that keeps fans coming back.

That is one reason MALOUM works well for creators who want a structured place to publish, organise, and monetise their work. The platform is only one part of the system, but the creators who do best are usually the ones who handle rights, consent, and publishing discipline properly from the start.

If you are setting up your next step, you can sign up at MALOUM and keep your creator business inside a workflow that is built for clarity.

If the person is the main subject, assume you need consent. If they are only background, check whether they are truly incidental. If there is any doubt, do not publish until you are sure the legal basis is there.

That is the safest way to respect image rights, avoid disputes, and keep your content strategy clean.

This is general information, not legal advice.

‍

FAQ

‍

Do I always need consent to publish someone’s photo in Germany?

Usually yes. Under §22 KUG, publication of an identifiable person’s image normally requires consent. The exceptions in §23 KUG are narrow, so creators should not treat public visibility as automatic permission.

‍

Are people in the background covered by the same rule as the main subject?

No, not always. Background people can sometimes fall under the accessory exception in §23 KUG if they are truly incidental. If they are clearly featured or identifiable in a meaningful way, you should treat them like a main subject.

‍

Can someone withdraw consent after I already posted the image?

Yes, consent can be withdrawn. What happens next depends on the original agreement and the legal context. In practice, creators should keep clear records and be ready to remove or adjust content if withdrawal creates a legal issue.

‍

Does GDPR apply even if I follow §22 and §23 KUG?

It can. Image rights and GDPR can overlap when a person is identifiable. That means a post may be relevant under both legal frameworks, so creators need to think about publication rights and data protection together.

‍

What happens if I publish someone without the right consent?

The person may demand removal and can potentially pursue civil claims such as injunctions or damages. For creators, the safer approach is to get clear permission before publishing and to keep proof of that consent.

‍