Ex-FPÖ club president Johann Gudenus will not receive any “compensation” for his appearance in the Ibiza video. The Viennese failed with his revenue-sharing claim before the Supreme Court (OGH), but managed to achieve partial success on other counts.
Gudenus’ memorable performance in the Ibiza video will not make him any money. The Supreme Court has decided that. According to “Presse”, the former deputy mayor of Vienna had filed a lawsuit over accounting and related revenue distribution, among other things.
The ruling is part of a complex procedure in which Gudenus primarily demanded the release and removal of the video and compensation from his lawyer. The Vienna Supreme Court (OLG), as a court of appeal, rejected all these claims, while Gudenus appealed to the Supreme Court – and was right on the points regarding publication and removal.
Gudenus feels exploited
According to the OGH, it is still too early to make a decision on this matter because it is not yet possible to assess the legality or illegality of the production of the film footage and its publication due to the structure of the case materials by the first court.
However, the situation is different with the right to accounting as a condition for a so-called “use claim” – with this Gudenus wanted to demand financial compensation for the lawyer who abused his reputation. The claim arises from the fact that he “saved himself costs and had to pay compensation for ‘knowingly taking advantage of the plaintiff’s personality’ even without obtaining any advantage.”
The General Civil Code (ABGB) stipulates that, simply put, compensation must be paid if someone uses the image of a well-known personality for advertising purposes without permission.
The arrangement does not apply to the Gudenus case
However, the Supreme Court saw the situation with the Ibiza video differently. “The present case differs from cases decided in case law in that individual personality characteristics of the claimant – such as his name, his appearance or his voice – were not used for a commercial purpose not approved by the claimant.”
Instead, film recordings were made and passed on of a conversation in which Gudenus had to assume “that his statements would be attributed to him by the participants in the conversation as a representative of his political party and as a public office holder.”
The publication and removal process continues
Statements and actions of politicians that are relevant in political discourse are not personality traits such as a person’s appearance, voice or name. The fact that Gudenus is recognizable by his appearance and voice does not make his actions and statements personal rights within the meaning of the General Civil Code. “A politician’s participation in a conversation does not meet the objective definition of Article 1041 ABGB.”
The accounting claim was therefore legally rejected. However, the process of releasing and removing the video continues.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
