Clearly! If the relevant editors had taken 5 minutes and published our article on April 2, 2016 with the headline “Anyone who shares this woman’s photo may be committing a criminal offense!” [ 1 ], then you would know that you screwed up.
To briefly remind you: this information has been being distributed on Facebook for a few days, and it doesn't matter at all whether the statement is true:
And it doesn't matter whether the following information is true or not:
Caution!!!
Calling all innkeepers and restaurants!
This woman drinks and eats and never pays!
Please share!
Public denunciation of this kind is forbidden! Even IF she has cheated one or more innkeepers, they have to go to the police, not to Facebook. We have made the image of the woman unrecognizable because any kind of representation WITHOUT her consent is prohibited:
And now we’re playing the funny game again: “Who doesn’t care about all that?” That's right, the picture doesn't matter. People don't give a damn about the personal rights of individuals if you can use it to get outraged and point the finger at these people.
This is a criminal offence, dear BILD!
We at ZDDK/Mimikama were amazed when we were made aware of the following BILD online article [ 2 ]: the photo of the woman, which we advised NOT to distribute, can be seen on BILD without any defacement.
(Screenshot: BILD from April 2, 2016)
Even if the woman has given her consent for the photo, that does not mean that it can be distributed freely. Especially not if it is still in the air that it is a person with mental illness (see: Thüringische Landeszeitung ):
It was realized that the woman must be mentally ill when she also ate the flower decorations.
In addition, we learn that the police are currently investigating the woman (according to BILD, she even stole toilet paper rolls from the police station [ 2 ]), and that the police are also currently investigating whether she is at all guilty.
What would happen, dear BILD; if it turns out that this woman is really sick? What's wrong with you? Is it worth it? Are click and sales numbers worth trampling on other people's personal rights?
Legal assessment
Gulden Röttger Rechtsanwälte 
, explains exactly what BILD has allowed itself to do here :
The Schlemmer scandal from a legal perspective
Even if the woman did not pay for the food and drinks, she still has the right to ensure that her personal rights are not violated by vigilante justice by the injured hosts.
First of all, it should be noted that a criminal also has a right to his or her own image.
You do not lose this right if it later turns out that a crime has actually been committed. Anyone who started and published the warnings and calls for the lady online without first asking the lady for permission is in particular violating Section 22 of the KunstUrhG (KUG).
It says: “Images may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person depicted.”
Violations of this regulation are punishable by a prison sentence of up to one year.
By warning the hosts online, the woman is denounced and her right to her own image is violated.
The innkeepers should have asked the lady's permission before using the portrait. Otherwise: Only the investigating authorities are allowed to search for (alleged) criminals and issue warnings. Please note:
Even the unauthorized distribution of a personal portrait can make you a criminal offense and expose you to civil law claims. This applies to the innkeepers as well as to the media that takes part in the denunciation.
What we are left with in the end...
All we can do is shake our heads. Yes, basically just banging your head on the tabletop. Of course, it is completely legitimate for innkeepers to warn each other about cheaters. You can do it, I would probably do it too. But: NOT on Facebook, NOT publicly. Call each other, send each other the pictures via PM or WhatsApp, but NOT publicly.
And in the end I can't think of anything else about what BILD does, a kind of digital neo-nationalistic pillory. Really…nothing anymore.
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )