Jan Böhmermann suffers a defeat in the “Beewashing” dispute. Beekeeper Rico Heinzig is allowed to continue advertising honey with Böhmermann’s name and face. The satirist puts his hopes in the appeals court.
Advertisement
A jar of organic honey, labeled on the label as “Beewashing Honey”, is marketed in a Saxon Edeka branch with a large poster that reads in capital letters: “Leading bee and beetle expert recommends.” The face of the supposed insectologist was also printed: it was none other than Jan Böhmermann.
Rico Heinzig’s “MyHoney” beekeeping advertising campaign is a humorous act of revenge: Böhmermann had accused Heinzig of greenwashing with bee sponsorships in a November broadcast on “ZDF Magazin Royale” – the satirist called it “beewashing.” the beekeeper did not respond with a lawsuit, but with advertising counter-satire: On the one hand, Heinzig had created the advertising poster described and had it hung up in a local Edeka market. On the other hand, he had advertised the Beewashing Honey on the beekeeping website as “Böhmermann honey”; The following words can be found there: “The honey for the ZDF Magazin Royale broadcast – with your own company branding if desired.”
Professional comedian Böhmermann didn’t find either of these funny and defended himself with an injunction before the Dresden Regional Court (LG). He failed in the first instance on Thursday: The LG considers the advertising campaign to be permissible (judgment of February 8, 2024, file no. EV 3 O 2529/23t). The court took into account that Heinzig’s beekeeping was entitled to the “protected right of freedom of expression and thus served the information interest of the general public,” as stated in a press release from the LG. Böhmermann’s personal rights should not be valued more highly.
Satire and counter-satire or “satire against economics”?
The satirist does not see the counter-satire in the counter-satire, but rather advertising at his expense: Heinzig is exploiting Böhmermann’s name, image and reputation in order to make money – a violation of general personal rights, especially name and likeness rights.
Heinzig sees it differently. His lawyer Dr. Markus Hoffmann (Lippert Stachow) argued before the LG that people who are criticized in humorous form in “ZDF Magazin Royale” have no other option than to defend themselves with counter-satire. “Your client is doing it perfectly. That makes it so difficult to take action against him,” Hoffmann told Böhmermann’s lawyer Dr. Torben Düsing (Preu Bohlig) said. Heinzig’s advertising campaign was an “attempt to rehabilitate himself.”
The fact that the court was sympathetic to Heinzig’s advertising campaign was also indicated during the hearing. LG judge Heike Kremz had repeatedly described the advertising poster as satire, although the Böhmermann side rejects this attribute. “The illegal sale of goods for the purpose of maximizing corporate profits is not satire,” emphasized Düsing LTO-Inquiry. Böhmermann’s accusation of beewashing in “ZDF Magazin Royale” and Heinzig’s advertising for the corresponding “Honey to the Broadcast” are not in the relationship between satire and counter-satire; Rather, the legal dispute is about “satire against business”.
Böhmermann photo is a portrait of contemporary history
A main legal point of contention in this case is whether the campaign is recognizable as satire to the average beekeeping customer. If it isn’t, it seems as if Böhmermann is actually recommending the honey. In technical jargon, this is called “image transfer”: the advertiser then takes advantage of the reputation of a well-known person in order to achieve higher sales. So what was it like here? Was the satirical nature of the advertising recognizable in this case?
Böhmermann says no. Anyone who hasn’t seen the “ZDF Magazin Royale” program about the death of bees doesn’t understand the context – neither on the advertising poster nor on the homepage. Heinzig, on the other hand, argues that the online advertising (“the honey for the show”) clearly refers to the ZDF magazine show and that the episode is also linked there. The advertising poster is also obviously satire. Judge Kremz also seemed to lean towards this view during the hearing. Because: “Of course Jan Böhmermann is not a leading bee and beetle expert,” she said to the amusement of the audience in the room.
Personal rights could also be violated regardless of whether the satire is recognizable as such. With regard to the right to one’s own image, Section 22 of the Art Copyright Act (KUG) must also be observed, according to which the publication of portraits may only take place with the consent of the person depicted. In its announcement on Thursday, the court pointed out the exception for portraits from the field of contemporary history regulated in Section 23 Paragraph 1 No. 1 KUG. Paragraph 2 sets out the additional requirement that no legitimate interests of the person depicted are violated. “This is what the court assumed with Mr. Böhmermann.”
Showdown in Karlsruhe?
It is undisputed that the image used for the advertising poster – which was apparently cut from a program on “ZDF Magazin Royale” – falls into the realm of contemporary history. The crux of the matter, however, remains the question of whether the action, which undoubtedly also pursues economic purposes, does not in fact violate legitimate interests.
The Dresden Higher Regional Court (OLG) will probably deal with this soon, as Böhmermann’s lawyer has already announced an appeal. “In the matter of ‘Satire against Business’, satire is of course appealing,” said Düsing LTO. The other side is also prepared: “We are pleased that the Dresden Regional Court followed our argument in all essential points. Of course, we will also defend the interests of our clients with commitment and determination in subsequent stages of the process,” said Hoffmann’s law firm Lippert Stachow on Thursday .
In expedited proceedings, the case will not go further than the Higher Regional Court. If the parties want to have the legal question of the extent to which a person affected by investigative satire can defend themselves with advertising counter-satire clarified before the Federal Court of Justice, this would only be possible in the main proceedings.
If the parties stick to their legal opinions, there will be a showdown in Karlsruhe in a few years in the matter of “satire versus business”. Is this the actual “most relentless showdown of all time”? Böhmermann hosted the episode dedicated to the “Battle of Bees against Bark Beetles,” which gave rise to Heinzig’s sweet revenge.
Citation suggestion
Jan Böhmermann loses honey dispute: The beekeeper’s sweet revenge. In: Legal Tribune Online, February 8, 2024, (accessed on: February 9, 2024)
Copy information about the citation suggestion