Slashdot Mirror

Before declaring a ruling contradictory, you should first read it; you can find it here. I recommend you read it in full.

In particular, the court didn't judge that the taking of the pictures itself was illegal in any way, after all she did consent to the pictures being taken within the context of their relationship. However, she did not consent to the pictures being taken for any other purpose, in particular, the pictures weren't meant for publication. Since she still holds personality rights over the pictures, consent can potentially be withdrawn. (This is where pictures differ from your sex analogy: after sex is over, it's done, but after pictures are taken you still hold certain personality rights over the pictures, at least in Germany.) The court concedes that it isn't always entirely clear where to draw the line, but because the photographer had publicised pictures without consent before, and because there is reasonable doubt that the photographer would take proper care to shield the pictures from third parties, and because some of the pictures were nude and/or sex pictures, and because intimate pictures can be used to hold some measure of control over someone, and because the consent was given in the context of a relationship which since has ended, in this case consent could be withdrawn, albeit just for the nude and/or sex pictures, not for the regular clothed ones. Therefore the court ordered the pictures to be destroyed.

The ruling doesn't say that taking these pictures is retroactively illegal (such a concept doesn't really exist in German law) nor that keeping the pictures until now was unlawful (although publicising them may/would have been) but not obeying the order to destroy them would be (it would be contempt of court). Of course, the court cannot easily check if its order has been executed completely, but that isn't unique to this situation. Should the photographer later leak pictures that were supposed to be destroyed, he could be charged not just with unjust publication but also for disobeying a direct order from a federal court.

This post is of course a rough summary, for the details you'll have to read the judgement yourself. As a final note, it's important to consider the societal backdrop against which this all happens. People are nowadays less hesitant to share nudes with their partners, mainly because they share pictures of anything and everything, but also revenge porn is on the rise, and the potential for blackmail and psychological manipulation is tremendous. The law will have to adapt to this new reality and clinging to the simplistic view that pictures are just property aren't likely to do society any good.

Oh really? Why is then the poster child of software patents that is Microsoft FAT patent, was uphold in Germany?
This nonsense about software patents not valid in EPO members nations (which includes significant number of EU members) simply has to stop.

US software patents are not valid in Europe? Someone needs to tell Germany about that because Microsoft FAT patent has been declared valid in court.

Fact: Software patents are alive and well in European Union.

"A German appeal court has ruled that Microsoft can't stop dealers selling software it intends should ship only with new PCs separately."

So, in Germany, it's allowed to re-sell OEM licenses and basically de-couple them from a computer. More about this here (German). A press release from the court (German) about the case can be found here

There also is a German online shop, 2ndsoft, that offers used windows licenses.

true.
Actually the software is Windows XP Home and StarOffice in the link in the first example.
This is a better link: PC Builder, Software
It shows the price for software added to a complete system at a big german store.
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, System-builder 79 EUR
Microsoft Office 2003 Basic (just preinstalled) 177 EUR
(IANAL yadda, yadda, but as a sidenote: OEM restrictions to software are not enforcable in germany)