Fundamental Rights Section II. Likewise, the complainant's photo, visible to all visitors at the entrance to the swimming pool, was displayed without legal basis in the then valid bathing rules. The display of a photo of a 14-year old boy for the purpose of his recognition exposing the latter to public criticism as in the case of a 'mug photo' without first obtaining the minor's and/or his parents', as legal representatives, consent infringes the personal rights of the person shown on the photo. The 'right to one's own picture' is safeguarded under Sect. 78 UrhG (Urheberrechtsgesetz – Copyright Act) and is designed to protect the person shown against being exposed to the public by publishing his photo or to prevent the use of his photo in a way that may give rise to misinterpretation. The display of a photo leads to exposure and a violation of the complainant's vested interests, since the photo was visible to many visitors of the swimming pool. The vested interests of the 14-year old complainant were overriding the public interest in publication of the photo. By displaying his photo, the complainant was at risk to be recognised in public and become subject to accusations or public criticism, which Sect. 78 UrhG is designed to prevent. The Ombudsman Board considers the highly visible display of the complainant's photo also as infringement of the constitutional right to respect of private life pursuant to Sect. 1 para. 1 DSG and Sect. 8 para. 1 ECHR, since the infringement is neither provided by law nor represents a measure that is necessary in a democratic society for the maintenance of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. According to the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights and/or the European Court of Human Rights, Art. 8 ECHR protects the right to respect for private life and the personal sphere. A recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on video surveillance (ECHR of January 28, 2003, complaint number: 44647/98 in case Peck vs. United Kingdom; ÖJZ 2004, MRK 2004/20) dealt with the use of photographs and the question whether taking photographs of somebody represents an intrusion of privacy. The Court distinguished between their limited use and their publication. In that case, the Court considered the publication of a video recording as serious violation of the Right to Respect for Private Life. Likewise, the Austrian Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, e.g. in its ruling of 23 July 1997, 7 Ob 150/97b, that Sect. 16 ABGB (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - Austrian Civil Code), pursuant to which everyone has rights by birth derived by reason and must 63