The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) limits the financial protection afforded by personality rights: statements, the content of conversations, and biographical details are not automatically considered “commercially exploitable” aspects of personality. Confidential passages may nevertheless be prohibited.

The legal dispute over the book “Legacy—The Kohl Protocols” has been before the courts for years. Now, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH, ruling of April 23, 2026, Case No.: I ZR 41/24) has ruled once again: Helmut Kohl’s widow and sole heir cannot demand the surrender of profits from the book. At the same time, the dispute over other passages in the text has not been definitively resolved. While the BGH upheld injunctions against certain passages, it partially remanded the case with regard to other sections.

What was it about?

The starting point was the earlier collaboration between Helmut Kohl and the journalist Heribert Schwan. In the early 2000s, Schwan served as a ghostwriter on Kohl’s memoirs. As part of this collaboration, extensive conversations were held and recorded. Following the rift between Kohl and Schwan, the book *Legacy: The Kohl Transcripts* was published in 2014, drawing on the content of the conversations from that collaboration.

Kohl’s widow objected to the publication of various passages. She also demanded information about the profits generated by the book and the distribution of those profits. She argued that the author and the publisher had commercially exploited Helmut Kohl’s right of publicity.

The Federal Court of Justice: No Distribution of Profits

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected a claim for disclosure of accounting profits and for the surrender of profits. The decisive factor was that, in the BGH’s view, the publication of the content of conversations does not infringe upon the pecuniary aspects of the general right of personality.

Personal characteristics such as a name, image, or voice can be protected as assets. These can be commercially exploited, for example in advertising or merchandising. However, according to the ruling, the content of spoken or written statements is not automatically covered. The same applies to a person’s life story or individual biographical details.

That is the central point of the decision: Not every unauthorized disclosure of personal or confidential information gives rise to a claim for the forfeiture of the proceeds derived therefrom.

A voice is not the same as a statement

It is particularly important to distinguish between a person’s voice and the content of their statements.

If, for example, Kohl’s original voice had been commercially exploited, the situation might have been assessed differently. In this case, however, the matter concerned the written content of conversations. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) did not view this as an exploitation of the voice as a personal characteristic, but rather as a publication of information and statements. These are not automatically protected under property law.

This distinction is significant in media law. It prevents every publication of statements made by prominent individuals from being treated, from an economic standpoint, as an unauthorized use of their image or voice.

Confidentiality remains protected

However, the decision does not mean that confidential discussions may be published at will.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed that a contractual relationship existed between Kohl and Schwan, from which a duty of confidentiality arose. While publicly known facts are exempt from this duty, this does not imply a general right to publish confidential information in a condensed or “less detailed” form.

In other words: It is still possible to protect confidential information—but a breach does not automatically give rise to a claim for profit skimming.

The issue of non-compliance remains unresolved

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) upheld injunctions against certain passages. With regard to other passages, it partially overturned the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne must therefore reexamine whether these passages can also be prohibited.

This largely resolves the financial aspect of the dispute. However, the dispute over which specific statements may continue to be disseminated remains unresolved.

Why is this decision important?

The ruling clarifies the distinction between non-pecuniary and pecuniary protection of personality rights.

The general right of personality protects dignity, privacy, self-determination, and personal honor. In certain cases, it also protects economic interests, such as when a person’s name, image, or voice is used for commercial purposes. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now made it clear: The intellectual content of statements and biographical information do not automatically constitute such economic aspects of personality rights.

This is significant for authors, publishers, and media companies. The ruling reduces the risk of being automatically required to surrender all proceeds in the event of the unauthorized publication of confidential content. At the same time, the risk of injunctive relief remains.

What does this mean for ghostwriters, publishers, and biography projects?

The decision highlights how important clear contractual provisions are for memoirs, biographies, interviews, and ghostwriting projects.

Anyone engaging in confidential discussions should set the terms in writing:

• what content may be used,
• who decides on approvals,
• whether audio recordings may be made and stored,
• What confidentiality obligations apply,
• what happens after the collaboration ends,
• and whether and how the material may be reused for other purposes at a later date.

For public figures in particular, such agreements can be crucial from both a financial and a reputational standpoint.

Practical Tip: Ensuring Confidentiality in Practice

Anyone who works with interviews, audio recordings, or notes from personal conversations should not rely on general expectations. Confidentiality should be addressed explicitly, specifically, and in a way that can be verified.

Conversely, for those affected: Anyone wishing to take action against publications should make a clear distinction between injunctions, monetary compensation, damages, and disgorgement of profits. Not every legal violation gives rise to every type of claim.

Outlook: The debate over the wording continues

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has denied the claim for the surrender of profits. This settles a key economic issue. However, it remains to be seen which other passages of the book may be banned in the future.

This case clearly demonstrates that in media law, it is often not the broad legal principle alone that determines the outcome, but rather the specific passage in question, its context, and whether it was confidential, infringed on personal rights, or was already in the public domain.