Court agrees with the owner: Google is not allowed to publish satellite images of the property

A man from Frankfurt successfully defends himself against his home being visible on the Google Maps and Earth services. In this case, the images also showed the part of the property that cannot be seen from the street.

If the owner of private property objects to the publication of satellite images on the Google Maps or Earth services, they may not be published, according to a ruling from Hesse. The company must refrain from publishing, as the Frankfurt am Main regional court announced. The publication violated the plaintiff's general personal rights.

The plaintiff was a man from Frankfurt who owns a house in the city. He had already successfully objected to the depiction of his house on Google Street View and Apple Look Around. The images had to be made unrecognizable there. Now the man turned against the publication of the images on Google Earth and Google Maps.

The regional court now agreed with him. The reason given was that no one should have to accept that aerial photographs of their inhabited property may be distributed worldwide without their consent. In this case, the satellite images also showed the area of ​​the property behind the house, which was not visible to the public from the street.

The personal retreat area extends across his entire property. Potential security-relevant access points to the property would be revealed by the satellite images. In addition, Google secretly obtains its images through “spying”. The satellite images created from high altitudes were not announced beforehand and went unnoticed by those affected.

Google cannot rely on freedom of information for Internet users. It is legitimate that the company wants to use its services to contribute to the democratization of knowledge and a transparent information society. But because of the intrusive intrusion into the plaintiff's private space, this purpose is not worthy of protection.

There is also no need for secret recordings of properties to expand public infrastructure. It remains unclear why satellite images of the plaintiff's property could be relevant for assessing holiday destinations or for geography lessons in schools. The judgment is not final.