German Court Rules That You Can't Keep Compromising Photos After a Break-Up

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "A German amateur photographer has found out after his ex-girlfriend took him to court, which ruled that the subjects of smutty pictures can withdraw their consent if they're naked. [News release in German.] The shutterbug was able to keep the clothed pictures, however, as they weren't considered to compromise the reputation of the woman in question."

Comments

Ridiculous

[kruach aum]

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally. If people want to play with their toys in their bedrooms, that is their own business. In this case, a camera is a toy. Once a relationship is over, they can keep the camera, but the images should be the property of those in them. If more than one person? Cut out the others.

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

Re:Ridiculous

[kruach aum]

No alcoholic or chain smoker plans to become addicted when they buy that first bottle of whisky/pack of cigarettes either, but that doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't take into consideration.

What this court case shows is that this woman is a poor judge of character. And instead of taking the opportunity to learn something, she just sues, making sure nothing is resolved and in fact (by winning) positively reinforcing her poor people judging skills.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

When you give go into someones bedroom and give consent to that person taking pictures you have entered a verbal contract.

The court argues that the permission and the contract were meant for the length of the partnership.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You did enter a contract when taking the pictures, and the contract was that the images were intended was for mutual enjoyment. When the romantic relation is over, this contract is broken, therefore in principle you lose the right to use the images.

Re:Ridiculous

[schekker]

Yes, a verbal contract that those pictures are private. That is what the court says. If the photographer wanted to use those photographs once their relationship was over, he should have let her sign a contract. He didn't. I think the German court made a very wise decision here. One which says you should be able to trust your friend. And if that trust is misplaced, the courts will be on your side.

Re:Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

Cut out the others.

That's why I always make my partners where clothing made out of green screen. That way, I can later use Adobe Premiere to insert images of supermodels.

My last girlfriend, I was able to superimpose a couple of supermodels over all that green.

[OK, see that was a joke. Honey, if you happen to be reading this, I'm just having a little fun with the fellas on Slashdot, and that green lingerie I bought you had nothing to do with CGI.]

Re:Ridiculous

[PsychoSlashDot]

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

If you want to include the word "should", then apply it where it belongs. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong. Personally the only way her having taken nude pictures impacts my view of her is that I now know she's a fun-loving person comfortable being attractive and sexual. She's not ashamed or repressed or otherwise convinced that the animal she is is somehow a bad thing.

There shouldn't be a big deal over being seen naked.

I get it that we're not there societally yet. I get it that because we're not there, there are consequences. But if we're going to talk about "should", let's put it where it belongs; we all should be comfortable in our natural state. That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally.

Irrelevant. If the pictures aren't stored on their private property, then too bad for them.

And what makes naked pictures special? What is this puritan nonsense?

Re:Ridiculous

[DriedClexler]

So you're saying you disagree with the part of the ruling that said he could keep the clothed photos?

Re:Ridiculous

[monatomic]

Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?

Re:Ridiculous

[mmell]

"Verbal" contract? Yes, I know they're enforceable - but aren't they generally considered to be worth the paper they're printed on? Part of the premise here is that the 'verbal contract' covers . . . what? She clearly had an explicitly stated understanding that the pictures would be surrendered or destroyed upon the termination of their personal relationship - I'm sure she said something like that, which means I'm sure it was part of their 'verbal contract' (cynicism intentional).

That's the problem with "verbal" contracts - they rely on the he-said, she-said thing to determine what the contract actually was. The simple words "I never said that" are generally enough to throw any verbal contract into doubt - unless there was a third party there to testify regarding the content of their agreement, or some verifiable act which supports the existence of such a contract. Courts end up using the "reasonable person" standard where such disagreements occur, and in this case a reasonable person would (in the estimation of the court) hold that rights to the intimate photograph endure only for the length of the personal relationship (since it's highly unlikely that there was a third party present during the intimite photography sessions).

I could be completely wrong. IANAL, let alone a German lawyer.

Re:Ridiculous

[tlambert]

Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?

So if "Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context", and Tumblr is part of "Everybody", where's the problem?

Re:Ridiculous

[MaskedSlacker]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally

Then they're obviously not paying attention since that is how the majority of their relationships will end.

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

Have you considered that maybe your view of relationships might not be universal? There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative. If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex it apparently has been a time well spent with this person. It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.

Re:Ridiculous

[Lost Race]

Wow, that's ten tons of crazy piled into a half-ton pickup.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.

As far as the case in Germany goes... It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb. Are they also going to demand that he forgets what she looked like naked? As long as he keeps the photo to himself, what's the difference between that and a memory? Nothing.

Keeping a photo as a reminder of a pleasant experience in your past is by no means crazy or immoral. That's exactly what photo albums are for, and why everybody keeps them! Just because you have a picture of someone (naked or otherwise) doesn't mean you obsess or masturbate to it. My shoebox of old travel photos (including various ex-girlfriends) just sits in the closet until I get nostalgic once every year or five and have a look through it. No obsession, no masturbation, no reputations smeared.

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

This is probably the core of this court decision: the judges share your opinion. They think taking pornographic pictures is indecent and no modest person should indulge in this. If you look closely you will notice, that this thinking needs some condemation of sexuality itself.

It is possible to think differently, though. I would even go as far as saying: Not taking pornographic pictures is an indicator for a lack of love of the other person or ones own body. As you said, you need to be responsible and talk about how these pictures may be used, but beyond that I cannot see any consequences you should fear.

Re:Ridiculous

[VortexCortex]

The only possible reasons to keep adult photo's after a relationship ends are unethical and immoral. Either the person wants to use them for revenge/smear purposes, or they are unable to cope with the termination of the relationship and need something to cling on to, or perhaps they have a porn collection that they want to supplement with an old girlfriend for masturbatory purposes. In all cases, that is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders.

So says you. Seems you failed philosophy 101. I think all that's healthy as fuck, and part of the human experience. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home?

If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous.

You're right of your fucking rocker, mate. You're assuming a fuck-load of intent based on zero action. Get bent, you fool.

If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same.

Are you even aware that you're trying to label every guy or girl who has ever pined for lost love or hung out with their friends "sociopaths" and "dangerous".

Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is [I'm a fucking idiot, and I don't know anything about reality so I ask stupid questions and make huge logical leaps]"

The physical picture isn't much different than a mental picture except I remember damn near everything that's ever happened to me all the way back to around my 3rd birthday, so my memories have proven more permanent than lots of photos, many of which burned in a house fire destroying family albums, along with some photos of deceased friends who passed away along with my girlfriend.

Fuck you for saying the few pics of them I still have left are signs of sociopathic or derangement. You may consider memory loss healthy, but I consider it a malfunction. Practice what you preach, idiot:

To claim that a relationship is wrong, or that two consenting adults planning a long term relationship can't do things in the bedroom is social retardation at it's finest.

To claim that being single is wrong, or that a consenting adult who's not harming anyone in private can't do things in their bedroom is the gourmet batshit Orwellian insanity. I'm glad I'm not a German and don't live in the EU (where they've enacted the Memory Hole law) so I don't have bend over and take the police state right up the place where you should go fuck yourself.

You might be an idiot who gave your ex some nudes and regretted it, so you like this ruling. However what you don't realize is this is just inching you long towards a bad place you don't want to be. Hey, have you seen what we can do with cybernetics and neurology now? FALSE MEMORIES. Yep. We can also identify where a memory is in the brain too, we can ERASE MEMORIES. How would you folks to leverage their right to be forgotten inside your skull? Oh you'd love it, I'm sure you're just wetting yourself thinking of all the fun you can have doing this to folks you now hate. See, you're the one that's not demonstrating the ability to empathize with normal human behavior. YOU'RE THE PSYCHO.

Eventually you'll get enough laws in place that you can't function without breaking them. It'll be no big deal at first because selective enforcement only holds the "really bad" offenders to the rules. You know, the folks who do this shit to celebrities and officials. Then one day you'll realize that these laws aren't being applied equally. Then you'll realize the definition of what's acceptable has changed and so have the penalties when you weren't looking. Then you'll say or do something some pompous powerful plutocrat doesn't like, and you'll be taking your turn in the slammer. Enjoy your distended anus in the police state priso

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "unethical," "immoral," "sociopath or " "psychopath" mean what you think they mean.

Re:Ridiculous

[SternisheFan]

Scott Helvenston joined the US Navy at 16 and was a Seal at 17.

Not every minor is coddled and hiding in a basement.

Conversely, not every person's brain is "fully cooked" at a certain, definite age. 14? 16? 18?? 25??? At what age would be someone be considered as an adult? It's all subjective to that individuals personal mental and emotional growth at their given age. Just because someone fought in a war at age 14 does not mean that they are emotionally stable enough to correctly understand. the implications of any sexual situations that they might find they might find themselves in.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous. If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same.

No, "we" would not. Dwelling on past failures is a human trait, which is seen as unhealthy if it prevents a person from moving on; to automatically assume that casting one's mind back to a previous partner equates to stalking or menace is simplistic to say the least.

If the person got off picturing their ex all the time, we'd consider them psychopaths.

Let's dispense with this "we" stuff. You're no more qualified to lecture on the workings of the human mind than I, and to frequently assume that you speak for the majority is irksome if not naked pretension.

Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is that they are not very different at all when used in sociological / psychologically disruptive ways.

I smell a Scotsman approaching. I'm not going to go down that route so instead I'll share an anecdote. A few years ago I became involved with a young physics student shortly after New Year. We had a passionate tryst that lasted the best part of a year and we both knew at the outset that it would only last until September, when he would go away to university. There were a few short getaways, a handful of road trips and - you guessed it - some pictures. One might even say that our relationship was made more intense by the knowledge that it wouldn't last.

When we split, it was as amicable as either of us could have wished for and we do still correspond from time to time. Returning to the issue of photographs... I still have one of the less racy examples; when I'm leafing through my album I'll occasionally spot it and a smile will pass my lips. This isn't some sign of mental illness or antipathy toward him but rather a pleasing reminder of a very happy time in my life. There's nothing unethical, immoral or dangerous about that, unless my then-paramour had asked me to get rid of them and even then it's debatable. (What else are courts for?)

Perhaps you should have qualified your rant with "if the other party wants the pictures destroyed", before you dove right in with your pontifications on morality.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

"dwells on a mental image of an ex" who doesn't want you having those naked photos of him/her. That's absolutely not healthy. That could have been made more explicit in the previous post, but the word dwell never has a pleasant connotation. It's quite alright to have lingering pleasant thoughts about a relationship, but if you get to the point of "dwelling", you need help.

Re:Ridiculous

[s.petry]

That is exactly the part of the post which people are not reading.

Re:Ridiculous

[Dahamma]

the images should be the property of those in them.

Except that's completely not the way photographic copyright law works - even in Germany, AFAIK.

And why is a camera "a toy"? Cameras a a tool, and pretty much no one argues that the photos can be art.

What if the subject posed for a nude painting (from a good enough artist that it was accurate/near photo-realistic)? Would she have a right to have it destroyed because she changed her mind?

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

A contract is SO not required, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The court ruled it only applied to nude photos, not clothed, so it has nothing to do with right to likeness, etc.

Basically it was a bizarre ruling (hence all of the press about it) - just the court trying to "do the right thing." Which is noble, but probably not legal. Then again, it's Germany, who know how it will turn out. No way the same thing would ever happen in the US, as there was implicit consent to the pictures and freedom of expression concerns wouldn't allow someone to just "retract" their consent to a work of art from a legal sense...

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

Choosing not to read. A lot of people on slashdot really want to hang on to their dirty pictures.

Re:Ridiculous

[s.petry]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.

What? Who said anything about non-existence? If you and your girlfriend/boyfriend have a night of adventure and take adult photos together, you both know they are there!

It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb.

As with above, you both "KNOW" the pictures exist. You took them together. Let's say it's you and she has the images. Lets say in the heat of passion, you were in a compromising position that does not look flattering. You don't want pictures showing up later in family and friends email boxes if she gets angry with you because you left a bill unpaid after the break up, or get blamed for the loss of their favorite shirt.

You ask her to delete the photo's and she tells you to go pound sand.

Germany just said that you have a legal right to make such a demand. She can keep the photos of you clothed, but not the ones that will get you fired or perhaps denied a secret clearance. (Yes, that can happen).

I agree that enforcement is an issue, and your piece of mind may never be completely clear. Remember that no matter how _you_ treat those naked photos of exes, other people are not so nice. Hell, search the Internet for a bit and find all the "My Ex" adult sites.

Re:Ridiculous

[Dahamma]

Wow, you must have had some screwed up relationships. What, you have never had a relationship end in a way that you didn't despise the mental image of your ex? Even relationships that don't work out can be positive life experiences, with many memories that don't have to be shameful, or whatever you think they are (even the "private" ones).

And seriously, if you think looking at porn and masturbation indicate "mental disorders", you just might be the one with the disorder (not the clear majority of the population that has done it).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to claim that a relationship by nature is unhealthy, I'll tell you to prove it.

They did not. For someone who complains so much about people not reading your posts you certainly don't do much of it yourself.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...

If you want to call out the exception as the normal, at least try and make it a valid exception. Nothing you said makes my statements wrong, you appear to be trying to nitpick to convince yourself that keeping naked photo's of an ex is an okay thing to do.

Yeah, how dare they think about things that you don't want them to think about, and enjoy things you think are 'creepy'. Shame on them. They must be mentally ill, or their relationship wasn't a good one.

It's pretty damn easy to make statements about how things are immoral and indicate a mental illness (Who doesn't have a mental illness nowadays? Psychology is such pseudoscience that tons of people have them.) and such. Anyone can do it about anything.

While reading your post, I found myself thinking things like, "And that's bad because...? It's wrong because you say so?"

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative.

I used a normal generalization where a person would want to keep naked pictures of their ex. If the relationship remains friends after a breakup, it's an exception not the normal. In which case, part of the friendship would entail deleting old naked photo's of the ex out of respect don't you think?

No. Deleting those pictures would be part of trying to get rid of that person. It would be like burning love letters. If you respect a person you should never do that. In addition, I don't think it is a normal generalization but your personal view.

It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.

If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...

What makes you denigrate sexual encounters in this way? Speaking only of my own experience I can say that sexuality has always been quite a beautiful part of my contacts with other people. Besides, I did not say that I need those pictures to remember, but I would concur that pictures help to remember, perhaps that is one of the reasons people take pictures in the first place. Furthermore, it is no insult to be mentally ill, try harder. :)

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

There isn't any thing that can considered respectful about holding onto those images when asked for them.

It works both ways. There isn't any thing that can be considered respectful about expecting another person to get rid of images that they value stored on their own private property.

What's even less respectful is getting government thugs involved in the whole thing, and forcing the deletion of the images.

Re:Ridiculous

[visualight]

s.petry you should video yourself saying that and youtube it, you could be like that Star Wars kid. Or see a counselor...just sayin

Re:Ridiculous

[JoeMerchant]

But people get off on unenforceable judgements. The real force of the judgement is that if the photos ever become public after the ruling, then the photographer can be found in contempt - which is a whole other golden opportunity for the ex to leak the photos and make additional hell for the guy....

Re:Ridiculous

[dbIII]

He pushes his HR granted work title in everyone's face as if he's a real engineer and goes on about how bits of 9/11 were faked so it's just another sad little insight into his personality. Don't take it too seriously.

Re:Ridiculous

[weilawei]

I wish I had mod points for this one. +1 Interesting/Insightful.

Re:Ridiculous

[fyngyrz]

Well and sanely said.

Re:Ridiculous

[fyngyrz]

Distributing them, for any reason, beyond the bounds of the relationship without permission is one thing. Contracts, informed consent, etc. Obvious.

Simply keeping them is quite another.

Re:Ridiculous

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, don't tease us. Post a link to the pics.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Man-canon? Wet wide she-through? Hahahahha!

But in all seriousness, this ruling is stupid. As long as consent was given to take the photos (they weren't obtained by spycam or something like that) and the photos are not being used maliciously (for blackmail, for example) there's no good reason why they should have to be deleted. This starts a slippery slope argument (1) I don't like the picture you have of me drooling - delete it!, (2) I don't like the photo of me looking like a goth because I no logner dress that way - delete it!) (3) I don't like the photo of my finishing last in the race because I'm a fat fuck - delete it, etc.

And keeping the pictures doesn't make him a pervert. Nothing wrong with having memories, or even jerking off to them from time to time (that's just human sexuality)

And captcha is FETISH! ;)

Re:Ridiculous

[haruchai]

So you have to cut the groom out of the wedding photos after the divorce?

Re:Ridiculous

[Noah Haders]

fine, I'll delete the pics, but I'm keeping the boudoir oil paintings!

Re:Ridiculous

[radarskiy]

"What's even less respectful is getting government thugs involved in the whole thing, and forcing the deletion of the images."

Resolving a conflict in rights between individuals is *exactly* the kind of the thing governments are created for.

Re:Ridiculous

[Keyboard Rage]

Your post would be perfectly suited for a drinking game. Just take a glass for every "fuck" or other reference to gay/hetero/whatever sex and you'll be drunk in no time.

Or possibly dead due to alcohol poisoning.

Re:Ridiculous

[Cederic]

That's not true in many jurisdictions, including the UK.

If you pick up my camera and use it to photograph your naked girlfriend, I do not own those photographs.

I do have a copy of them, and it may be tricky for you to get hold of them if I choose not to share them with you, but I do not own them.

Re:Ridiculous

[zAPPzAPP]

This is not at all a bizarre ruling.
It is totally in line with Germany's privacy laws and there are a lot of similar rulings.

The fact you are talking about copyright, when this has nothing at all to do with it, shows that you do not understand the laws ('Persönlichkeitsrecht') the ruling is based upon.

Re:Ridiculous

[nospam007]

" Love is not an excuse to be retarded."

Anyway, people will just upload them to some amateur porn site to comply with the law.

Re:Ridiculous

[nospam007]

"No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally. "

Besides those umpteen millions with a prenup, you mean?

Re:Ridiculous

[YoungManKlaus]

actually the article is lost in translation, the german ruling clearly states its about the public distribution of said photos

Re:Ridiculous

[Servaas]

It's sad to see the moderation system failing time and time again on Slashdot.

Re:Ridiculous

[Carewolf]

I doubt he had to delete it. This smells of journalistic edging of the truth. If she withdraws consent then he is no longer allowed to distribute these photos or show them to anyone else. That is not the same as having to delete them, but certain media would certainly love to portray it that way, since it could harm their sources of compromising photos.

Re:Ridiculous

[angel'o'sphere]

So, she leaks her own photos then sues him, and how does she prove his guilt?
Certainly that will be very easy, won't it?

Re:Ridiculous

[ganjadude]

I have friends who can paint an image from memory that is just as good as any photo ive ever seen. how does that play in here??

Re:Ridiculous

[ganjadude]

true, and the courts get alot of things wrong all the time

Re:Ridiculous

[jythie]

Understanding consequences does not make other parties immune to them. The photographer is still a person with free will, and there is no ethical loophole for 'but she said yes at one time!' for future behavior.

Why is it victims only ever have to accept consequences? Why do people doing crappy things get support by claiming it is the victim's own fault for needing to know better?

Re:Ridiculous

[Stan92057]

A women will only allow the images if she thinks the relationship is solid and her partner is trustworthy. If you think other wise I suggest you come out to the light from your basement. Nudies,homemade porn are never to be shared unless its agreed apon no agreement no sharing or keeping of images. That's what happens in real relationships everything is talked about...Everything. You got screwed in a relationship? get over it, be a man not a 11 yr old. You don't get to freely decide the consequences of what happens in the sexual relationship alone

Re:Ridiculous

[s.petry]

The person I responded to equated a relationship with being an alcoholic and tobacco addict. That _IS_ making a claim, albeit indirectly, that a relationship is unhealthy.

Re:Ridiculous

[harvey the nerd]

So when someone dies, the partnership is over and you are supposed to throw away the photos ???? F' that.
German courts are expanding petty cases into US sovereignty areas. F' that.
Attempting to micromanage all sexual relationships long distance is bad for human relations, my VHEMT point. F' that.

Re:Ridiculous

[cyberchondriac]

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

Which rights exactly are these? Is the guy making money off of them or somehow using them commercially, because that's generally what rights to use a likeness refers to. The pictures are a part of his life too, if he took them. If he's only using them personally, I would feel she has much of a leg to stand on, unless they can roll slander in there too - context is everything here. But obviously the German judge disagrees, in any event.

Re:Ridiculous

[gl4ss]

Put your money where your mouth is and post a naked picture of yourself and a link. Or are you suddenly feeling modest?

what the fuck man? the "compromising pictures" in the case were never published, there were never intended for publishing and the fella had not published them.

furthermore, the way "compromising pictures" is vague you could next argue that you have the right to raid your ex friends house for pictures of you throwing up.. like wtf, what kind of contract gave consent for anyone making sure he deleted the pictures or not?

Re:Ridiculous

[spire3661]

First of all there is no 'victim' here. Two consenting adults took pictures and then later one of them changed their mind about it. That doesn't make her a victim of anything other than poor judgement.

Re:Ridiculous

[Solandri]

What if the subject posed for a nude painting (from a good enough artist that it was accurate/near photo-realistic)? Would she have a right to have it destroyed because she changed her mind?

Models for photos (and I'd assume photo-realistic paintings) typically have to sign a release form, acknowledging that they are of age, understand the photos will be distributed and/or publicly exhibited, and fully consent to said distribution either for free or in exchange for certain compensation. The release form is used specifically to prevent incidents like you're hypothesizing.

To an extent, the law acknowledges the right for the subject of the photo to consent to its publication. The right is just not considered substantial enough if, say, you're walking around in the distant background at the beach when someone takes a photo of it for an ad. The person generally has to be clearly recognizable (what got Google in trouble with Street View), and/or constitute a significant portion of the photo. Generally there are exceptions for newsworthy events, which every paparazzi (ab)uses with celebrities - everything they do can be considered newsworthy. In these cases, the public's right to know is considered to be greater than the subject's right to control their image. The exact rights, including whether just commercial use is prohibited, or any non-consensual publication is prohibited, varies from country to country.

I think this is the right decision. What's been murky so far isn't control of photos - it's pretty clear from established law that the subject of the photograph wields ultimate control in matters of commercial use, publication, or distribution (depending on country). The photographer only gains those rights if the subject consents, and that consent can be of varying levels (e.g. ok for publication in a limited distribution newsletter but not a magazine with a wider circulation, ok for print but not video, ok for a newsletter but not for ads, and in the case of self-nudies for your GF/BF - ok for personal use but not for distribution). What hasn't been clear is what exactly constitutes publication. In ye olde days when it took effort and money to make a copy of a photo, a single print was about all there was. If you passed a smutty print of your ex-GF among your friends, while perhaps unethical, it wasn't publication. But today with the Internet and the way digital photos can be endlessly copied, I think there's a strong argument that distributing a photo online (e.g. putting it on a web site) constitutes publication. The commercial shame your ex websites for instance are blatantly illegal since they don't have model releases and are making money off of these people's images against their wishes.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

If someone stole a video of you having sex with your spouse (or a donkey) would you still be okay with them keeping copies after the original was returned? They promise not to use them commercially, although sure they might show them to a few friends at parties. If your daughter broke up with her college boyfriend would you be okay with him keeping the photos and showing them to all your friends and coworkers? Let's say he only uses them "personally", meaning, never, ever, will he show them to anyone else, not just that he is not selling them. That is certainly less creepy, but by returning (or destroying) the items it prevents the clear temptation (or accident) of letting others have access to them. These days, it is next to impossible to guarantee any digital item will not become published at some point, and it will only get worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in the future.

The point not being that everything that is "wrong" has to be legislated, but that this is clearly wrong and therefore is something we should at least consider. I, personally, think the risk of damage is high enough that it warrants special protection under the law.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

Of course it's insane to ask you to publish those compromising photos.

But surely you can send them to me, a private individual. I promise not to publish them or show them to my close friends and girlfriends, really I do. I also promise to secure them so carefully that no matter what happens to my digital data (lost, stolen, I croak) they will never see the light of day (especially since I always whack off at night). I know I'm a complete stranger, but you can trust me more than an ex (who you clearly have unresolved differences with), right?

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

There is no "conflict of rights." Furthermore, removing a conflict that wasn't even violent to begin with by force, and was related to someone storing certain pictures on their own property, is absurd.

Or are you of the opinion that every "conflict" needs to be solved through the use of government force, and we should get the government involved in everything that could be perceived as a "rights" issue (That is, everything!)?

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Put your money where your mouth is and post a naked picture of yourself and a link.

That makes absolutely zero sense. I wouldn't even put up clothed pictures of myself, and indeed, I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it. But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.

Furthermore, my argument was not that everyone should post naked pictures of themselves; that's your own straw man. Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense, and so is your illogical reply.

I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.

Re:Ridiculous

[SourceFrog]

You don't really have a "right to your likeness" or the courts would have ruled that you couldn't keep photos even if fully clothed in photos - which would be nuts - no, this ruling specifically pertains to permission to keep nude photos. If it was as you say, a model who agreed to do a topless photo shoot and signed an agreement could renegue on the agreement the transaction is complete - no, she cannot, she would be in violation of a contractual agreement. When you're in a relationship, there IS a sort of a contract/agreement, an "implicit contract" - the only reason you can keep the naked photos while still in the relationship is that it is clear the other person has given 'implicit consent' to do so. It stands to reason that the average person would expect that the 'default terms' of such an implicit agreement would probably include that if that person ceased to be a romantic partner, they are generally unlikely to want you to keep naked photos of them (i.e. you cannot claim to reasonably expect that the terms of the implicit agreement were indefinite). So the agreement is fair, but not because of a "right to their likeness" and lack of contract - on the contrary, there's an implicit agreement, but no "right to likeness".

Re:Ridiculous

[SourceFrog]

^This. I wish I had mod points to mod you up. It is absurd that society has such a repressive view of the natural human body.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it.

How do you not allow people to take pictures of you? In most of the world I can take as many pictures of you as I want, whether you "allow" it or not.

But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.

So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?

Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense.

Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.

I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.

That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy). For example, If a website needs to post your picture and you are completely okay with them publishing your passport photo or one of you doing the raunchiest most embarrassing sex act of your life, then your original statement is consistent. Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

How do you not allow people to take pictures of you?

Did you even read what you replied to?

So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?

No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.

Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.

The difference is that in some pictures, the person isn't wearing clothes. What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special, and forces their removal. In fact, had I my way, no pictures would be removed. But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.

That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy).

His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.

Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.

The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.

Also, hypocrisy doesn't debunk anything.

Re:Ridiculous

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

Vindictiveness is not an excuse for revenge.

Re:Ridiculous

[kruach aum]

That's true, vindictiveness is a character trait that entails a propensity to seek revenge.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

Did you even read what you replied to?

Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?

No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.

Why are you complicating it? You are saying that under no circumstances, no matter how "compromising", incriminating, embarrassing or illegally obtained that you would ask the government to delete photos of you held by a private citizen. Correct?

What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special

As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy. Certainly you are free to lay low and not voluntarily divulge any information about yourself, but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.

But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.

Except that the rest of the world sees a difference between naked pictures and non-naked pictures. When the world no longer recognizes that difference then the court shouldn't either.

His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.

His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.

The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.

Also, hypocrisy doesn't debunk anything.

I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not. You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?

"when I can help it."

It's very simple. I avoid places where my picture is likely to be taken. I ask people not to take my picture, and they will often respect my wishes. I ask people to let me get out of the way of their camera before they take a picture. I cover my face. Etc.

Why are you complicating it?

I'm not. You know my position; stop playing dumb.

As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy.

Privacy is not merely a right, but a concept. If I'm sitting in my home and no one is around, I effectively have privacy in my home. It's about effective privacy.

And I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the word "hypocrite." You sound like Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN. They're obsessed with that word, and it's idiotic because being a hypocrite doesn't actually debunk anyone's arguments.

but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.

The government has limits to its powers and is paid for by tax dollars. Very different situation. If this was about the government collecting information en masse, I would find it acceptable for the information to be deleted. You might call me a "hypocrite," but in reality, that's a completely different situation from a private individual taking a photo. I know you were waiting for a "gotcha" like that, but no one can possibly predict 100% of the scenarios that someone might bring up when they're choosing their words, so your 'victory' is hollow.

His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.

Where is the hypocrisy? I don't see it. Never once did I say everyone should take naked pictures of themselves.

I brought up two things:
1) The government shouldn't be involved.
2) Naked pictures shouldn't be treated as special.

Which one of these things have I myself violated?

I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not.

Tell me what you think "hypocrisy" means.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."

When he brings up a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with my reply, and then acts as if I've been debunked before giving me a chance to reply, that is a straw man.

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Besides mental harm

The problem with legislating against most kinds of mental harm is that it's so utterly subjective and can be caused by anything that it could be applied to anything. And yet it's applied so inconsistently.

spreading intimate photos can have tangible consequences for the victim, such as losing their job or their whole career.

Let me ask this of you: Who is the one doing the harm?

If someone sees the photo, and decides not to hire that person, who made that decision? The one who decided not to hire the person. If anyone 'should' be punished, then at the very least, it should be the people causing the harm.

I don't advocate for censorship, and indeed, censorship is merely a fantasy, as it'll never work. Practically, your 'side' has already lost this battle.

But as far as I know, the picture was not released online.

Re:Ridiculous

[silvermorph]

/agree about publishing, but not about impracticality. It's not like the police are going to go to everyone's house after a breakup and take their photos away, and those photos will probably exist in the hard drives and minds of millions of people who never make a big deal about it. But it also means that if your ex is holding what amounts to blackmail photos over you, you now have a legal recourse.

Before, if you told the police that you accidentally dated a psycho and now they're showing naked photos of you to everyone in town, they'd say "your ex owns those photos, so maybe you should have kept all your naked pictures to yourself." Which is great if you have a time machine, but not if you're looking to stop someone from being an asshole today. With this, if you make a request, they have legal grounds to take away the photos.

And sure it's probably going to be abused by some people (and that scene from Forgetting Sarah Marshall won't make sense anymore), but before we had people abusing their possession of naked photos. So, which is worse?

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

So you meant to say you "avoid" having your picture taken or that you "discourage" people from taking your picture. Not that you don't allow it. You have a valid point to make, but by choosing your words poorly you muddle and diminish it.

Yes, now you understand.

IF you are willing for photos of you to be on the internet, but not photos of you naked or engaged in sex acts (with fat chicks), YET you say there should be no distinction for other people, then you are a hypocrite. It's not hard.

As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.

And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.

1) Are you saying that the government should never be involved in any issue regarding privacy whatsoever?
2) Are you saying that naked pictures or pictures of explicit sex acts should be treated in all cases exactly the same as any other picture?

1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists.
2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.

I'm old fashioned in that I think the word means what the dictionary says it means: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Most other dictionary definitions are fine too.

Okay. Then there was no confusion on my part. That is what I meant by "directly contradict."

I didn't say his post was ideal, however you dismissed the entire concept of using a valid hypothetical situation to point out the hypocrisy of someone's statements.

No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdSam]

Yes, now you understand.

Well okay, then. That's completely different and understandable. But realize that unless you are a hermit there are almost certainly a lot of photos of you out there in the world and they are becoming ever more available to the public along with lots of metadata which will identify you and provide lots of information about you that you probably don't want out there.

As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.

Which is why his assumption was off the mark in your particular case, but that doesn't make the hypocrisy implied by the proposition any less valid.

And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.

Again, addressing the hypocrisy here. You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in? From your other statements it appears that you are inconsistent, but you keep avoiding those scenarios that are inconvenient to your position.

1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists.

Still ducking.

2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.

Which again would be fine if you could show yourself to consistently hold that opinion, but you can't (or won't).

No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.

"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.

Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time. By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases (existing and imagined cases that might someday affect you), your opinion is meaningless - although your vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

I agree that the world, especially America, is too puritan and that casual nudity or even explicit sex photos shouldn't be a big deal in most contexts. But they are, and until the world changes, the courts should take that into consideration.

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in?

No, it very much depends on who's causing the problems. The people reacting to the naked pictures are causing the problem. So I don't think naked pictures are the problem, which is why I don't think they should be treated as special.

There is no hypocrisy in my position.

Still ducking.

Still ducking.

"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.

It was true at that time, too.

Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.

Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time.

Such hypocrisy. To call me a hypocrite when you're a hypocrite yourself! Therefore, all of your arguments are 100% incorrect.

Man, you should work for Fox News.

By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases

He took a picture, and she consented. She later decided she didn't want him to have the pictures anymore. I object to getting rid of the pictures retroactively, especially since they're stored on his equipment.

What is not to understand?

Re:Ridiculous

[crossmr]

That's why nude models have contracts. Often there is a clause that lets them back out later, but only if they compensate the artist.

No they do not.

That's why they have contracts, because if they get cold feet after the fact the photographer can point to it and say sorry, but you signed off on this, I'm not tossing away all my hard work. I don't know of any standard modelling contracts that include clauses for a model to change her mind later.

Really? Because I note that there has been a crack down on revenge porn sites in the US.

Yes, and what's that all about? Is the crackdown about consent to the creation of the photograph or usage?

Re:Ridiculous

[goose-incarnated]

Ah, you think women are minor to men and that guy has the right to do what ever he wants with HER PICTURES?

Ah, you think that men are minor to women and that girl has the right to do whatever she wants with HIS MONEY?

(That's how maintenance works - she doesn't have to prove that she's spending it on the kid)

Re:Ridiculous

[RivenAleem]

"Yes dear, Morph suits are HOT"

Re:Ridiculous

[goose-incarnated]

The topic is about photos, not about payments for kids. If you don't want to pay for kids after a divorce: don't father any. It is that simple.

If you don't want someone holding nudie pics of yourself: don't give them any. It is that simple.

See? The issue of personal responsibility goes both ways.

Re:Ridiculous

[tlhIngan]

That's why they have contracts, because if they get cold feet after the fact the photographer can point to it and say sorry, but you signed off on this, I'm not tossing away all my hard work. I don't know of any standard modelling contracts that include clauses for a model to change her mind later.

All contracts should have provisions for breaking them. All contracts usually do because otherwise it's a very messy thing.

(There are many reasons why a contract can't be fulfilled and must be broken - including inability to deliver (either the product turned out to be a dud, or the financing to pay for it dried up), some act of God (fire, natural disaster, etc) that now prevents the completion of the contract, changing of minds, etc.

Now, they usually include penalty clauses to compensate the other side for the costs they may have incurred expecting completion. E.g., if you're expecting a delivery of wood to build a house, and the lumber yard decides they have a more lucrative contract to fill, then if your contract is sound, you would request compensation for breaking, including refunding any money previously paid, reimbursement of expenses like hiring workers who cannot work because of no materials but need to be paid, contract extensions of other work, delays, etc., even the cost of finding another lumber yard to supply you in an emergency and the additional costs incurred in doing so (because you'd pay far higher to get it more quickly and it's a sudden order unaccounted for), etc.

Likewise modelling contracts can have escape clauses for both sides. Of course, this may mean the model may have to pay a lot of money to compensate for losses incurred (e.g., if the model was in a lot of scenes that need to be re-shot, then the expenses of that need to be covered, etc).

Absent escape clauses, it's messier because now you're in breach of contract law and having to deal with the courts.

Re:Ridiculous

[kaatochacha]

Then don't take naked photos. Sheesh, how hard is this?

Re:Ridiculous

[kaatochacha]

That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.

What a boring world that would be:
"Honey, check out my new swimsuit, which is as exciting as the molding of your elbow".

Re:Ridiculous

[s.petry]

Despise my exes? Hell no, I have very good memories. Would I keep an adult photo of an Ex? Again, hell no! What impact would that have on a current relationship?

I think you are confusing normal every day pictures without adult pictures. They are not the same, society does not treat them the same, and your new relationships may be damaged by you keeping _adult_ photo's of ex lovers.

Yeah, I guess some people would take no issue because they don't see themselves in the ex pile. After they think about that dilemma for a bit, those adult photos of the ex may not get a laugh and could cause extreme discomfort.

Re:Ridiculous

[s.petry]

If a person has sexually explicit love letters that they maintain from an ex, is it that different from keeping adult photos? We are not talking about the generic picture of you 2 on a roller coaster, the court ruling was on adult photos.

Now would you keep around sexually explicit letters after a relationship is over? I'd question your mental health if you did, at least after the normal grieving phase is over. Those letters are likely to harm your next relationship, just like the adult photo's would. Harder to use as a revenge tool, but still why on earth would you want to keep them?

It's not denigrating sexual encounters, it's having respect for your current relationship. You think your new lover is going to be ready to let you break out the camera after seeing those? Possible, but not probable.

Re:Ridiculous

[someoneOtherThanMe]

<quote><p>Would I keep an adult photo of an Ex?  Again, hell no!</p></quote>
Totally with you - I also much prefer pre-pubescent photos of them.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm strongly in favor of a person's right to perpetual ownership of personally identifying information, including their likeness. It extends naturally from autonomy and the inherent right to one's own body, i.e. no slavery.

What's interesting is just how far from this idea technology has allowed us to travel, into a society which considers privacy intrusion as a right, rather than privacy.

Ramifications

[Dan East]

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.

Re:Ramifications

[nurb432]

Yes, we are getting on board the train for a slippery slope. ( well at lest the Germans are, the rest of the world isnt following... yet.. )

Re:Ramifications

[Luckyo]

Example #1: taking a picture of someone having sex in public. Clear and obvious privacy violation unless it's "in your face" kind of in public that is illegal.
Example #2: video of someone acting like a jerk: Define the following: a. Someone. b. Circumstances. c. "acting like a jerk". All of these impact the decision.

I'm guessing you're come from an anglo country and possess an anarchist/libertrarian bent. This article is about Germany. A good point of reference for you would be the following:

1. How you treat freedom of speech, they treat privacy.
2. How you treat privacy, they treat freedom of speech.

As a result, it would be pretty surprising if this was overturned.

Re:Ramifications

[EmperorArthur]

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.

That was my thought as well but remember the story about right to be forgotten. That case said it's ok to censor someone and have them remove totally factual articles and links. It was the online equivalent of if you don't like what someone said about you in a book then they have to stop printing it and pull it from store shelves, and bookstores have to remove all traces of it ever existing from their system.

It would have been a totally different lawsuit if it happened across the pond. Here in the US this would have been Copyright and First Amendment (both explicitly given to the gov) vs something much more nebulous (defamation or publicity rights maybe). Of course, here in the US they've determined that the first amendment doesn't cover "obscene" speech. Pity they don't really define obscene.

Another thing is that in most marriages the assets are merged. It's always tricky to divide everything in the divorce. The common (American at least) feeling is "she gets everything, and he gets to keep the clothes on his back."

Re:Ramifications

[rubycodez]

no worries, Germany has a stellar record of never actually falling down a slipperly slope

Re:Ramifications

[AmiMoJo]

Why is it that Slashdot always seems to completely misunderstand all European court rulings?

The point is that the photographs were made in private, with the expectation of privacy. The girlfriend expected her boyfriend to keep them private at the time they were made. She gave consent for them to be taken on the grounds that they were a couple, and now they are not together the consent is withdrawn.

It would be bizarre for it to be any other way. In public no consent is required. Being a wanker in private would be protected though, unless there was a public interest argument. It isn't clear why anyone would consent to that in the first place though.

Re:Ramifications

[newcastlejon]

The article is light on details, which is giving me some trouble forming an opinion. If the photographer published these pictures then I agree wholeheartedly that doing so is an invasion of the subjects privacy. On the other hand, if I were to take some intimate pictures of my partner solely for my own enjoyment* that's a different matter entirely.

*How much enjoyment is to be had depends on how clean or messy the break-up was, I suppose.

Re:Ramifications

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, photography isn't just a matter of copyright in Germany. There are other rights that need to be considered too. There are limits to what you can take pictures of.

One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.

Another limit is the right to ones own picture: You generally need permission to take pictures of people, but there are some exceptions: People who are just "Beiwerk", i.e. just random bystanders who are not a dominant part of the picture, don't need to be asked for permission. Another exception is anyone who implicitly agrees to be photographed (e.g. smiles into the camera, poses, etc.). There are several more exceptions. Some of these exceptions are limited to certain uses of the picture (e.g. not in advertising).

And then there's "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht", which loosely translates to personal rights. It's what this case is about. The Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a wide ranging right which in particular encompasses the right to privacy and protects the private sphere (innermost and most personal thoughts and feelings and sexuality). This is a very fundamental right and usually wins out over less fundamental rights, like that of a photographer to use the pictures he took.

Re:Ramifications

[xbytor]

>then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone.

It can't. The problem is that there is (generally) no model release form. Posting photos anywhere would require written content of the model. I'm surprised I haven't heard of any cases using this idea. Or am I missing something.

Re:Ramifications

[Sir_Sri]

Far reaching in the sense that anyone who wants to do business in germany has to figure out how to comply with the rules, which may be distinct from the rules where they are based.

Lets say the german photographer backed up his images to a google drive account. What (if any) responsibility does google have in enforcing a ruling like this?

What if the couple lived in Germany when they took the photos, but one party moved to another EU country? What about a non EU country? What about photographs taken while on holiday in france but brought back to germany (and variants) etc.?

Are there other things potentially on conditional contracts like this?

Re:Ramifications

[Luckyo]

They may pervert it heavily, but you can still do things like stand with pictures of pieces of aborted children in front of schools because it's classified under freedom of speech.

Pretty much anywhere else in the world such argument would obviously not fly.

Re:Ramifications

[dryeo]

In America you might be able to do that with a sign that says "abortion is bad" but if you have a sign that says "abortion is fucking bad" you'll quickly find the limits of American free speech. In some States having a picture of a healthy baby feeding will also show you the limits of free speech in America. Then there is the difference between showing a real beheading to someone giving head.
Different cultures have different ideas of free speech.

Re:Ramifications

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to the americans, Germans have a constitution strongly protecting the rights of the individual. Contrary to the brits, Germans have a constitution at all.

This strong protection was set in place because Germany went down a slippery slope, not in spite of. The court ruled according to this protection.

You Americans and Brits helped to build such a democratic and modern constitution, which you should be thanked for (ok the bombing wasnt neccessary). However, americans, your democracy sucks. This is Germanies second (or even third if you count paulskirche) democratic constitution, so we also didn't do it right the first time. What about a second try for you?

Re:Ramifications

[Zelucifer]

She gave him consent to take them. Her consent is only needed for that single instance, as once those photos are taken, he owns them. She's essentially claiming property rights on something he owns (in this case, intellectual property). Just because it involves her being naked, does not change that fact. As long as the photos stay private, they should be his to do with as he pleases.

Re:Ramifications

[mpe]

One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.

The other obvious issue here is that not all roads are "public ground" in the first place. A private road which is also "public right of way" would be functionally identical to a "public road" to any normal road user, but not to a "private surveyer".

Re:Ramifications

[mpe]

A person allowing their picture to be taken in an intimate setting (naked) can given consent for private use only without giving consent to copyright, most couples view these sorts of pictures to have a private purpose, threfore it is easy to assume that the consent is private use only.

Copyright isn't the only issue here anyway. Laws protecting privacy, including data protection (a legal concept which barely exists in the USA), can also apply here. Concepts such as data not being held longer than necessary could equally well apply to personal relationships as business relationships.

Re:Ramifications

[AmiMoJo]

No, the key is consent. Once you break up the consent for you to have those images is removed, simple as that. Just saying "I took them, they are on my SD card" is irrelevant. When taken in private consent is all that matters, unless there is an overriding public interest argument.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

While that may apply to future use, if consent is given to take a photo you can't go back and ask them to delete it either. They own the artistic copyright on that image. Whatever the merits may be. The subject consented when it was created. They might disallow further publishing of a photo, prevent it from being seen publicly, but to force someone to delete all traces of it is madness.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

A photographer has copyright by virtue of being the author of a creative work. That's it. You do not need a release to own copyright. Model releases are not about copyright. They are about usage rights.

The fucking stupid coming out of you is just mind boggling.

Re:Ramifications

[AmiMoJo]

You can take it back in Europe. Copyright is not the issue.

Re:Ramifications

[ColdSam]

How did the subject consent? Was there a written contract that explicitly gave away all current and future rights? If so, then there is no obligation to return the photos, the photographer was acting as a professional. However, in almost all these cases the implicit consent comes with the stipulation that these photos are only for use during the relationship (or that the relationship will last forever). If you don't think that's the case then try asking your partner the next time: "It's okay if I keep these after we break up, right?" If she's in the tiny minority that says yes, then you should hold onto that girl because she's exceptionally cool (or already has so many naked photos out there that a couple more won't matter).

Re:Ramifications

[celle]

"Germany has a stellar record of never actually falling down a slipperly slope"

      "Falling"!! Germany didn't fall anything. Like Russia now, they willingly jumped off a cliff ignoring the potential consequences. It took the rest of the world kicking the shit out of them to correct that decision. I hope you're listening Russia.

Re:Ramifications

[MBGMorden]

This doesn't really effect copyright. Remember, copyright governs rights to reproduce and distribute material.

In this case the material has already been reproduced and distributed by the copyright holder. Later they decided to change their minds.

I could see a restriction on being able to redistribute such material, but I don't see being required to delete it.

Besides - enforcement of this would be virtually impossible. Anybody who wanted to keep the pics would just make a secret copy. Are they going to make weekly inspections of his computer for life to make sure they don't find pics of his ex?

Re:Ramifications

[ColdSam]

Besides - enforcement of this would be virtually impossible. Anybody who wanted to keep the pics would just make a secret copy. Are they going to make weekly inspections of his computer for life to make sure they don't find pics of his ex?

Hard to enforce, not impossible (not even virtually). Many crimes are extremely hard to detect, let alone prove, but that does not make laws against them not worthwhile. In this case you don't have to take crazy, extraordinary measures like you describe. You simply have to make it clear to the person holding the photos that they will be put in prison and have bankruptcy inducing fines if it can be proven that they did not take every measure to delete the data.

Re:Ramifications

[chihowa]

She gave consent for them to be taken on the grounds that they were a couple, and now they are not together the consent is withdrawn.

This is the part than non-Europeans likely have a hard time understanding. Withdrawing consent for something that happened in the past is an alien concept for Americans, for sure.

Withdrawing consent for something that is ongoing makes sense, but retroactively deciding that you now disagree with something you previously agreed to and expecting history to rewrite itself to cater to your whims is bizarre. It reeks of refusing to take responsibility for your past actions.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

They consented to having the image created at the time. They would admit as much by taking it to court to revoke their consent. It doesn't really matter how they consented, both parties are in agreement that consent was given at the time to create the photo. Once an image is created you can only talk about usage rights regarding any public usage of the photo. They certainly can't build a time machine and go back and revoke the consent they gave to actually take the picture at the time.

They may not want the photographer to be able to use the image by publicly displaying it going forward, but those are usage rights, that has nothing to do with the consent given when the photograph was taken. The artistic ownership and control of the image belongs to the author of the photo which the subject is not.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

There is absolutely explicit consent given when the image is created. Unless the party is claiming they didn't consent at the time, consent was given.

Usage rights are not the same thing as ownership and copyright.

However, personal private usage rights to any photograph a photographer creates is always a given, regardless of any other usage rights. The photographer has a right to keep that in his personal collection. He may not be allowed to display it publicly, use it commercially, or even hang it in his house, but having the image sitting on a hard drive is absolutely within his rights.

Unless the subject has a written "work for hire" contract in most jurisdictions, the photographs are copyright and owned by the photographer. Changing your mind later because of a personal relationship doesn't somehow trump hundreds of years of law surrounding art.

Re:Ramifications

[ColdSam]

There is absolutely explicit consent given when the image is created. Unless the party is claiming they didn't consent at the time, consent was given.

That is a totally unwarranted assumption, many such photos are taken without explicit consent in either the legal or common usage. But let's just run with the specific example you want to use, to keep things simple. He asks "Can I take some nude photos?" and she says "Yes, go ahead."

Usage rights are not the same thing as ownership and copyright.

However, personal private usage rights to any photograph a photographer creates is always a given, regardless of any other usage rights. The photographer has a right to keep that in his personal collection. He may not be allowed to display it publicly, use it commercially, or even hang it in his house, but having the image sitting on a hard drive is absolutely within his rights.

You continue to get hung up on the legal definitions and legal precedent (particularly American law, I assume). That's fine, but you need to be clear on that. It is quite probable that a judge in America, right now under current laws would not require someone to return or destroy all nude photos of their ex. Just because the subject hasn't given unlimited explicit consent is not LEGALLY important. Morally, ethically, logically, yes. Just not LEGALLY, right here, right now.

Unless the subject has a written "work for hire" contract in most jurisdictions, the photographs are copyright and owned by the photographer. Changing your mind later because of a personal relationship doesn't somehow trump hundreds of years of law surrounding art.

If you don't think the law regarding photography has changed since 1814, then I'd have to say you were mistaken. All the laws that govern this case have changed dramatically since the invention of photography and they continue to evolve at different paces and in different directions depending on the jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the laws covering this area in America will change, but even more likely that courts will interpret existing laws in light of new technology as they have done in many cases, including this one in Germany.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

That is a totally unwarranted assumption, many such photos are taken without explicit consent in either the legal or common usage. But let's just run with the specific example you want to use, to keep things simple. He asks "Can I take some nude photos?" and she says "Yes, go ahead."

It's not unwarranted at all. Unless the pictures were taken secretly via hidden camera the issue of taking pictures was discussed and the subject agreed.

Otherwise if one party whipped out their camera and started snapping away and the other party didn't want it, they would have stated as much.

If someone is going to court to withdraw consent, it's because consent was given in the first place.

You continue to get hung up on the legal definitions and legal precedent (particularly American law, I assume). That's fine, but you need to be clear on that. It is quite probable that a judge in America, right now under current laws would not require someone to return or destroy all nude photos of their ex. Just because the subject hasn't given unlimited explicit consent is not LEGALLY important. Morally, ethically, logically, yes. Just not LEGALLY, right here, right now.

That's right, it isn't legally important, that's the way the law works. Oral contracts are also legally binding in many places. So while they may not have a signed piece of paper, the verbal consent given to take the photos is a contract to create those works.

If you don't think the law regarding photography has changed since 1814, then I'd have to say you were mistaken. All the laws that govern this case have changed dramatically since the invention of photography and they continue to evolve at different paces and in different directions depending on the jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the laws covering this area in America will change, but even more likely that courts will interpret existing laws in light of new technology as they have done in many cases, including this one in Germany.

It's changed, but an author's right to their own work has pretty much always been tantamount. This is a dangerous road to travel for art.

Re:Ramifications

[ColdSam]

It's not unwarranted at all. Unless the pictures were taken secretly via hidden camera the issue of taking pictures was discussed and the subject agreed....

This tells me you have no idea what the words "explicit" and "implicit" mean, in a legal context or otherwise.

That's right, it isn't legally important, that's the way the law works. Oral contracts are also legally binding in many places.

What is important in an oral contract is that both parties understand what they are agreeing to and the courts often have to decide that, sometimes based on incomplete evidence. It would be quite reasonable for some courts to decide that the oral contract agreed to by both parties at that time of the photographs intends to give rights to the photos only for the duration of the relationship. You seem to think that is outrageous and impossible, yet that is exactly what the German court has decided, so I think you're wrong there. An American court would probably see it different today, but maybe not next year or the 5 years from now.

So while they may not have a signed piece of paper, the verbal consent given to take the photos is a contract to create those works.

Again you make the assumption that there was verbal, explicit, informed consent. Again, I'll work with you on that as long as you understand that is often not what happens.

It's changed, but an author's right to their own work has pretty much always been tantamount. This is a dangerous road to travel for art.

Nobody is revoking the creator's right to keep "art" that they have legally obtained informed consent for. For example, I think I should be able to write a contract that says I will allow you to take my photo, but that you have to destroy all copies of it after five years. You don't have to agree if you don't want to take the photo. Should the law prevent such a contract?

Because of the aforementioned implicit limited duration of nude partner photos the courts are not taking away anything the photographer had legal rights to. The only reason American courts don't see it that way now, IMO, is because they are puritan and old-fashioned and have a bias that people who pose for naked photos don't deserve such protections. If photographers really want to guarantee their right to their nude "art" indefinitely they should get it in writing - something that is unwieldy and problematic for non-nude photos, but "compromising" photos are a special case.

Re:Ramifications

[crossmr]

The fact that you need to put art in scare quotes indicates that you've got some kind of inherent bias here, and it's obviously coloring your perspective.

This tells me you have no idea what the words "explicit" and "implicit" mean, in a legal context or otherwise.

I'm aware of what they mean. I think in most situations, at least the first time one party tries to snap some intimate photos, a direct question would be asked "Do you mind if I take these photos?" or "is it okay to take some pictures?" or even a "let's take some photos" waiting for a confirmation. Allowing the photographs to be taken in that context is explicit. Further along in the relationship the party may just take the phone out and start snapping as it's assumed that the consent continues and it's unnecessary to ask every time.
That's implicit consent unless the party suddenly objects at some point.

Nobody is revoking the creator's right to keep "art" that they have legally obtained informed consent for. For example, I think I should be able to write a contract that says I will allow you to take my photo, but that you have to destroy all copies of it after five years. You don't have to agree if you don't want to take the photo. Should the law prevent such a contract?

The problem is there was no duration specified at the time of the creation. That was not the contract as created, and it's a non-starter here. This is exactly like you agreeing to pose for photos then 5 years later suddenly going back and saying "oh yeah, you know what I know I agreed to them and you put all that work into them, maybe even exhibited them, etc, but now I'd like you to destroy them all, k thanx"

That's pure and simple bullshit.

The subject never specified they were for the length of the relationship, and there is no reason the photographer should be the one who suffers for them failing to specify the terms they wanted when they consented to have the work created. Now the article mentions that she took some herself. It's certainly within her rights to withdraw any implied usage rights when she shared those photos with him and ask for those to be destroyed/returned.

but "compromising" photos are a special case.

You talk about America being puritan but then think nude photos should get special care. Which is it? There is in fact no reason that nude photos should get special attention. A photo is a photo is a photo.

Re:Ramifications

[ColdSam]

The fact that you need to put art in scare quotes indicates that you've got some kind of inherent bias here, and it's obviously coloring your perspective.

Do you consider a drunk guy pointing his camera phone down at his wife blowing him as art? I don't. I'm willing to let you call it "art" for the purposes of discussion, but only in the context of any work created by an individual. There is no bias, just an attempt to make a distinction between a legal definition and common definition.

I'm aware of what they mean. I think in most situations, at least the first time one party tries to snap some intimate photos, a direct question would be asked "Do you mind if I take these photos?" or "is it okay to take some pictures?" or even a "let's take some photos" waiting for a confirmation. Allowing the photographs to be taken in that context is explicit.

That is a much more reasonable statement. In previous posts you claimed it was always explicit consent, except in cases where the camera was hidden. Which is not consent at all. So, we both agree now that there are cases where consent is given, but not explicit consent.

I agree with you that the question is often asked in healthy open relationships. However, also in those healthy relationships there will be some follow up. "Okay, but you can never show these to anyone." or "Well, just for us, right?" .... There is some context and phrasing (and past agreements, as you said) are important. In particular "let's take some photos" implies that the photos are for us.

Neither one of us knows what percentage of the time explicit consent is given and what explicit qualifications are put on the photos. It's enough that some of the time informed explicit consent is not given. If we care about what isn't explicitly stated, about the expectations of those involved, and we should, then we know that the majority of women would not want their exes to keep compromising photos of them.

That's implicit consent unless the party suddenly objects at some point.

There, I'd lean in the other direction. At a minimum that's implicit consent, the previous discussion is irrelevant in that regard. However, it could be considered explicit by the court if it's just a repeat of prior behavior.

The problem is there was no duration specified at the time of the creation. That was not the contract as created, and it's a non-starter here.

So you keep saying, but with no evidence. In every verbal contract, especially implicit contracts, there are a ton of assumptions made that get built into the contract. One of those assumptions is that a guy will not keep or use erotic photos outside the relationship. I'm not sure what circles you hang out in, but I can guarantee that the vast majority of women I know have this understanding. If, I'm wrong, and the vast majority of women would say at the time, "Yes, honey I want you to keep and enjoy these after we break up." then that is a different story. The court should reflect whatever commonly accepted standards there are in their jurisdiction.

This is exactly like you agreeing to pose for photos then 5 years later suddenly going back

It's nothing like that, see above.

put all that work into them, maybe even exhibited them

These are all very different qualifications you're adding on to complicate the issue. You can make a special case for a guy who has invested a ton of work or needs these photos for some reason other than just spite or wanking material. But that is the special case, not the normal case. If the photos have been exhibited to further a photographer's career then he damn well should have gotten a model release already.

Now the article mentions that she took some herself. It's certainly within her rights to withdraw any implied usage rights when she

Need better link

[BradMajors]

This posting needs a better link. One that actually has some information.

Re:Need better link

[Anonymous Coward]

information

You mean illustration?

Re:Need better link

[Rhymoid]

Agreed. TFA eventually leads to this 'source', but it doesn't refer to actual court proceedings. This seems to be a much more authoritative source, by the way.

Re:Need better link

[Rhymoid]

Ack. Second 'this' should have gotten a link to some German Ministry of Justice thingy.

Re:Need better link

[ArcadeMan]

Would you settle for a really dirty picture instead?

Re:Need better link

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Wow, someone has soiled himself big time in that picture.

Re:Need better link

[thegarbz]

The posting needs a summary with a coherent sentence.

Re:Need better link

[Soulskill]

Thanks. I've added these to the summary.

portrait right

[dutchwhizzman]

Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally. The right to your portraits. This means that under certain circumstances, you can withdraw previous implicit permissions, because you did not sign a waiver.

Re:portrait right

[Threni]

No part of the comment makes any sense.

> Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally.

What does it mean for a picture to be `declared legally`?

> The right to your portraits.

?

> This means that under certain circumstances, you can withdraw previous implicit
> permissions, because you did not sign a waiver.

Withdraw permissions you didn't explicitly give someone? But...they weren't given in the first place, so how can they be withdrawn?

Re:portrait right

[Anonymous Coward]

"Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally."
I think he meant "In several countries you have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally your property."

The point being that privacy and photography laws vary wildly among the countries in the world.
The French are very opposed to photography in places like restaurants. It's probably because they are usually up to no good.

In some countries, France for example, any photograph that has your picture in it belongs to you.
French law requires that a photographer get your permission before taking the photo.
Even if you give permission to be photographed, that does not grant the right to publish the photo.
Generally this only applies if the person is the main subject of the photo, so persons captured incidentally to photos taken of public gatherings and so on do not have rights to the picture, but even public photos can be barred from publication in some circumstances.

Public figures can be photographed and published only if it is related to their public duties and not private life.

Blowing it out of proportion

[ThePhilips]

I see that Americans are already blowing it out of proportion.

Remember: German legal system isn't based on precedents.

This ruling relates to a particular case and is valid for that single particular case. Nothing else. Other judges deciding other cases might or might not pay it any attention.

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

In the USA, so far I've only seen articles about "thou shalt not distribute". This sounds more like "thou must giveth up".

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[swillden]

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

In the USA, so far I've only seen articles about "thou shalt not distribute". This sounds more like "thou must giveth up".

Only because the summary is badly-written. What the ruling said was that consent could be withdrawn, which means the holder of the photos can't do the things allowed by copyright... namely make copies, display them publicly, etc.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is correct regarding the requirement to delete the pictures (German source).

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you've never heard of Stare Decisis then...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).

Precedent does not have the full weight of law, but for cases that are similar enough in nature and scope, precedent and therefore caselaw does in fact have the full weight of law.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[linuxrocks123]

Giving up moderation to respond to an AC. Oh, what a world.

Stare decisis, and precedent in general, is much more important in common law countries. Germany is a civil law country. I don't have a very good understanding of civil law countries (I'm from a common law country, and common law makes more intuitive sense to me), but, from what I do understand, precedent sorta kind maybe a little bit matters, but courts can basically do whatever the heck they want, basing their decisions purely on the text of the statutes. They are specifically not bound by the interpretations of that law that they or any other court used in the past. You can only really be sure that precedent is going to be followed when a high court has consistently ruled a certain way in a variety of cases over time. And even then, they can really still do whatever they want.

This isn't so ridiculous as it sounds, because even in common law countries like the US, the Supreme Court can overturn itself, and has (such as Plessy v. Ferguson). It's just considered very bad form for a court in the US to overturn itself, so it doesn't happen too much. In civil law countries, it's only really bad form to overturn a precedent if the court has consistently followed that precedent in the recent past, so a ruling in a single case doesn't matter so much.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[mark-t]

How would that ever be enforced, however? Unless he actually does something with any copies of such pictures that reveals that he still has them, how could they ever know that he had deleted them, or if he simply didn't publish them anywhere?

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[ThePhilips]

IANAL.

from what I do understand, precedent sorta kind maybe a little bit matters, but courts can basically do whatever the heck they want, basing their decisions purely on the text of the statutes. They are specifically not bound by the interpretations of that law that they or any other court used in the past.

But the benchmark is the same: whether the judge's decision would stand an appeal.

From what I've read, civil law allows more than just a blind compliance with the law. Like in the case here: the reality of human interaction has changed, but the right to privacy is a basic one. While in USA you already think in precedents, quoting here copyright and first amendment, in Germany it is viewed simpler: we had privacy 50, 25 years ago, and technical progress should not disregard it. Instead it should accommodate it. While US courts are more or less obliged to think of the information the way it was 100 years ago - German courts are not and as such they are free to reinterpret the laws in a modern context, whatever past decisions might have been.

The craziness of USA legal system is that you had to have a case about garage door opener. For some time, garage owners were not sure they own the doors to their own garages. That's just crazy.

The craziness of Germany legal system is that judges might decide (and do) absolutely equivalents case, 100% perfectly matching, differently. But luckily that happens when modern reinterpretation of the law is still unsettled, like it happens right now with the copyright and privacy cases. But even if interpretation of the law is settled, judge might still take into the account personal human factors and decided differently.

Though, the German system isn't really crazy as it appeared to me first. Judges here meet periodically to discuss unusual decisions and to come to common interpretation of the law. Precedents might be not as important - but still it makes sense to save time and effort by relying on previous ruling. From what I heard, btw, majority of German judges do not really bother inventing their own decisions, relying mostly on the precedents. But still they take pride in making a unique decision when one is needed.

( Interesting side-effect of this is that German politicians occasionally pass a law which they deem important/urgent - without thinking through the consequences. They know they can rely on judges to decide the cases on the expressed intent of the law, instead of literal word-by-word interpretation. As soon as the law is field-tested, so to say, law is reviewed and amended to clarify and improve wording and close the loopholes. )

Again, IANAL. Most information I have is based on reading German newspapers, while still learning German. Take it with s grain of salt.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[Carewolf]

As far as I can tell, only because the person taking them had shared them with someone else. His punishment for for violating her privacy is that he has to delete the private photos he has.

This is not a general ruling but a specific ruling for this case. (also, last sentence in your link says it is not final)

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[mark-t]

How could he possibly provide any real proof to the court that he didn't keep any additional copies? His lawyer documenting that he deleted them doesn't mean he didn't keep any further copies of them. Ultimately, it would depend on a statement that he makes which could very easily be a lie, and that can only be detected as such if he does something afterwards which reveals to anyone else that he still has them.

Of course, being unable to reveal to anyone that he still has them without legal repercussions would mean that about the only thing he can realistically do with them after that is use them for ... uhmmm... personal recreation. I'm not sure whether prohibiting something like that is remotely legally enforceable. It treads closely to the boundary of trying to control what people are allowed to even think.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[dotgain]

... uhmmm... personal recreation. I'm not sure whether prohibiting something like that is remotely legally enforceable.

Talk to the Catholics.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[mark-t]

They can't enforce it either.

Re:Great!!

[zugmeister]

Does this mean I can remove all the pictures of me drunk on Facebook???

Are you naked in them?

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Threni]

Well, they can, though, because the photographer cannot sue. What's to stop them?

Re:Europe is pretty fucked up like that

[rubycodez]

so had her cock been smaller than yours it would have been a fine evening?

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Nyder]

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

I'm sorry, who is the stupid people here?

The people who make the laws without realizing the consequences that law will have every situation, or your parents (actually I'm referring to you, because you know better) for letting a stupid law trump common sense and digital preservation of something that is important to them, and in extent, your whole family?

Granted I know you are making an example, but it sucks. You are saying your parents can't make a digital copy of their wedding photos, when they can very much go make a digital copy of their photos. No one will stop them. Unless someone in their family got all bent out of shape because that broke some copyright law no one knows or cares about and won't let your parents make copies of them (and yes, I am looking at you for this.)

So either your story is bullshit, or you just made up parts to fit the convo here. Or I guess you are dumber then a box of rocks and the apple didn't fall far from the tree?

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most photo printing places, including WalMart or Walgreens, will refuse to print the pictures without a written release from the photographer. I had a friend (who did photography as a side business) take pictures at my wedding. I was given the raw files and did all the post work myself. Without a letter they still refused me even though they were my pictures to print. Since I wasn't doing anything sketchy, I printed up my own release form. I also had to give copies of that form to everyone in our extended families.

Crazy

[CuteSteveJobs]

This is getting crazy. First some spanish judge rules your right to privacy lets to stop people learning about your bad behaviour. Now this? I've a better idea. Don't let people take nude photos of you.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

The Photographer has the rights to the negative. What your parents have is a copy of that photo, and of course they can copy it as much as they like. What they can't have is the original negatives.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[geezer nerd]

Who is saying NO to the digitalization of the photo?

If you are a Slashdotter, then I imagine you have a scanner somewhere in your equipment repertoire. Just scan the photo yourself. Problem solved.

We're heading straight for a Godwin moment, here.

[mmell]

Just sayin'.

Oil Paintings

[Zan Lynx]

What about oil paintings? Didn't a lot of the Old Masters paint nudes? I bet some of them broke up with the subjects of the painting too.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Registered Coward v2]

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.

Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.

Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.

Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.

Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.

All right then...

[TheCreeep]

I'll stop compromising any more photos after a breakup.

So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[hsthompson69]

Wait, so you're not allowed to masturbate while thinking of someone once you break up with them? It's now immoral to have sexual fantasies?

Does this mean a girl who masturbates while fondling a diamond ring she got from her ex needs to return the diamond ring?

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[Anonymous Coward]

English isn't your first language? If it is, why do you not understand the definition of "dwells" and what the expression "all the time"? Since I'm guessing you are a native English speaker, if you are not trolling try reading my post again fully instead of selectively reading what you feel like.

Someone who does not know the difference between breath and breathe should not be criticising others on their English.

Please get off your high horse. To be blunt, you're coming off as a pompous ass.

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[hsthompson69]

Maybe your practice of masturbation differs from mine, but it usually involves some significant "dwelling", and certainly happens "all the time".

I suppose some people are better at loving themselves than others :)

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[angel'o'sphere]

If the diamond ring was an engagement ring, then ... legally ... yes. Morally in my opinion not. But by law the ex has the full right to demand it back, I'm pretty sure that also holds in the USA.

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[hsthompson69]

So home pornos are now to be considered like engagement rings? :)

Dating sure is complicated in the digital age :)

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[ColdSam]

The difference is that it was easy to understand his meaning, despite his typo or misspelling. Not understanding that the world "dwell" has a negative, unhealthy connotation is in a totally different category, as it makes his entire (and valid) point incomprehensible. Which explains (almost) all the ridiculous negative comments he has received. It's hard not come off as a pompous ass when you're dealing with morons, I guess.

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[ColdSam]

The laws for returning engagement rings when the wedding is called off are not quite that simple and it varies from state to state.

This only apply to "amateurs", or works for hire?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Could a porn star decide later on that they "revoke their consent" for their previous work, and demand that it all be destroyed/deleted/vanished under threat of legal penalties?

Well done, Germany!

[SternisheFan]

Now laws like this need to be adopted by every country in this world, for the benefit of anyone, male or female. Thes "revenge against my ex" sites should be shut down, sued into oblivion, and anyone found guilty of posting comprising photos of an ex-partner should also be found culpable for monetary damages.

This 'Brave New Internet World' of ours should not mean you have the right to post photos (or any bullying derogatory libalous commentary) of another human being without risk of being subject to criminal and monetary prosecution.

I personally find this internet trend of 'revenge porn' to be abhorrent to the sensibilities of anybody who has even a modicum of morality. This needs to be stopped now in order to protect the lives of innocent people who gave their trust to their one time mates. For anyone who takes advantage of someone's trust in this way, how do you face the person in your mirror every morning and like and respect that person?!?!?!

Re:Well done, Germany!

[pla]

Now laws like this need to be adopted by every country in this world, for the benefit of anyone, male or female.

Allowing withdrawal of consent after-the-fact has a hell of a lot of pretty damned scary implications that go way, way beyond shutting down "revenge porn" sites.

Personally, I would consider allowing someone to take pics of me during sex as more serious, due to its permanence, than the sex itself; so what happens when someone decides to withdraw consent for the actual sex (outside Sweden, of course, which already sets a precedent for rape-after-the-fact, and it has left them with the single most castrated male population on the planet)?

Not a good precedent. Attack the actual problem, don't create a tar-pit of a legal loophole to avoid directly addressing the problem. Hell, that same idea applies to most of the BS "X when done on a computer" crimes we so often rail against here on Slashdot. Why does the same thing get a pass when talking about "when done nude"?

Re:Well done, Germany!

[SternisheFan]

Now laws like this need to be adopted by every country in this world, for the benefit of anyone, male or female. Allowing withdrawal of consent after-the-fact has a hell of a lot of pretty damned scary implications that go way, way beyond shutting down "revenge porn" sites. Personally, I would consider allowing someone to take pics of me during sex as more serious, due to its permanence, than the sex itself; so what happens when someone decides to withdraw consent for the actual sex (outside Sweden, of course, which already sets a precedent for rape-after-the-fact, and it has left them with the single most castrated male population on the planet)? Not a good precedent. Attack the actual problem, don't create a tar-pit of a legal loophole to avoid directly addressing the problem. Hell, that same idea applies to most of the BS "X when done on a computer" crimes we so often rail against here on Slashdot. Why does the same thing get a pass when talking about "when done nude"?

We are now still in the process of coming to grips with the implications of world wide distribution of an individual's rights to their personal photographs and information in a wide range of countries. One country may not legally provide protection to someone who is over that country's age of consent, while it would be criminal in another country. Since this "relatively new" internet is global, it seems to me that we are at the crossroads of a new set of standards for many situations we're facing as a planet-wide population. A 'Global Internet Law', if you will, with equitable protection for all humans. Perhaps eventually, a Global Government with equal laws to protect all the Earth's inhabitants. Not a small undertaking to be sure, and not one that will be accepted readily by all cultures in a near time frame. Eventually this must come to be in order for us to progress to the next, higher level as a maturing species. To not protect the presently disadvantaged among us is akin to (apologize for the Godwin here) what the Nazis wanted, to deny the rights of the less fortunate, oppressed voiceless people of society. And if don't continue taking these positive steps toward a future of equal rights for all, imo, the societies of our future will be grim indeed.

Re:Well done, Germany!

[pla]

This is not 'withdrawal of consent after-the-fact'. There was never any consent for publication. The pictures were taken with the expectation of privacy.

Know how I can tell you didn't read TFA?

This has nothing to do with publication. The court ordered him to delete privately held material that she consented to have taken in the first place.

The man, a photographer, had made erotic videos and taken many intimate photos during the course of the relationship, all of which the woman had given her consent to, even taking some herself.
But when the couple separated she demanded he delete all of the videos and pictures in which she appeared.
The court agreed, stating the consent to use and own privately recorded nude pictures could be withdrawn by the ex-partner on the grounds of personal rights, which are valued higher than the ownership rights of the photographer.

Very simple ruling. She withdrew consent for the pictures to even exist, after the fact.

Dear Abby

[Trax3001BBS]

I think it was Dear Abby (honest :} ) someone wrote asking about having compromising photos taken of them by their husband. The answer was to wear a mask.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Chas]

Because everyplace they take to get it converted (it's larger than legal-scale), tells them "no".

Umm... no. Cause this is not US or UK law.

[denzacar]

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law.

It is German law.
And as such, it is civil law and not common law.
There are many fine points to compare but the main one is - civil law does not care much for precedents.
It's case by case basis, each to be trialed on its own terms, following a set of established codes.

I.e. Just because ONE judge decides something in one case, does not suddenly mean that all judges in the future should just follow his/her example.
So... the decision made in this case has no further ramifications beyond this single case.

Has Your Reputation Been Compromised by Photos?

[Irate Engineer]

Umm ... if you're in court asking this question, yes ... you're reputation is pretty fucked, no matter what the photograph contains.

Unless you are planning to make stripping and oblong vegetable porn a career - DON'T. LET. ANYONE. PHOTOGRAPH. YOU. WITH. A. ZUCCHINI. IN. YOUR. <ORIFICE>! Just don't do it. It's that easy folks to keep a good reputation with the puritans amongst us.

Re:Has Your Reputation Been Compromised by Photos?

[Mal-2]

Unless you are planning to make stripping and oblong vegetable porn a career - DON'T. LET. ANYONE. PHOTOGRAPH. YOU. WITH. A. ZUCCHINI. IN. YOUR. <ORIFICE>! Just don't do it. It's that easy folks to keep a good reputation with the puritans amongst us.

This is defamatory to all vegisexuals everywhere, and I demand a retraction and an apology, you insensitive clod!

Re:We're heading straight for a Godwin moment, her

[Anonymous Coward]

How can anyone Nazi that coming?

That means you could consent to sexual intercourse

[ayesnymous]

But then later withdraw that consent and file rape charges against your partner.

Re:German courts require break-up documentation?

[fazig]

They do have something like that, it's called marriage or civil union. Come to think of it, other nations do the same thing.

Re:Europe is pretty fucked up like that

[fazig]

You should have signed one of these contracts.

So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relation

[Maxo-Texas]

Because this has happened.

She had a boyfriend but she liked showing off her boobs to a small group of guys.
So she sent me some unsolicited pictures of her boobs. It was a near thing because 2 months later, she ended up marrying the guy and all sexts were ended.

Since we were not in a relationship and the photos were unsolicited, what would the german court say then?

Pics, or it didn't happen

[laejoh]

Pics, or it didn't happen.

There, I had to say it!

Typical of German authorities ... *sigh*

[garry_g]

Unless some A**hole posts private pictures after a break-up (or even during a relationship - most likely causing a break-up) - how is anybody going to prove somebody still has any pictures, or from the other side, prove that they deleted compromising pictures?

How long will it be until legislators, courts, etc. arrive in the 21st century? Or the late 20th, for that matter ... that would already be an improvement ...

Re:Typical of German authorities ... *sigh*

[countach]

If you keep private copies and shut up about it, no harm no foul. But if you release the photos, then you are in trouble.

The bigger problem with this ruling is if the photos make their way into the public domain, how to prove it was you who released them, and when you released them. By the time someone withdraws their consent formally, the damage will already be done.

Re:This only apply to "amateurs", or works for hir

[Dominare]

Not the same thing. Porn 'stars' sign a contract before they appear in films or magazines or whatever, just like models or other entertainment professionals. Thus there is a legally binding agreement covering who owns the rights to the resulting media preceding any photos or videos being created, which is a very different situation indeed to the one we're discussing now.

So he gets to keep the clothed ones?

[bolt_the_dhampir]

Who is this neutral party that's been tasked to go through all their private photos and figure out which ones are acceptable? Is this up to a single individual? A committee? The two of them in company of a mediator?

porn stars

[countach]

Great for porn stars if you can withdraw your consent if the photo is smutty. Wait for the DVD to be released, then withdraw your consent until you get a bigger slice of the pie.

Re:porn stars

[YoungManKlaus]

not really, because there you have a contract which is (usually) not the case in a relationship when you send yourself smutty stuff ;)

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[countach]

By the sound of it, the issue is not the relationship, the issue is that your can withdraw consent for any smutty photo.

Lost in translation

[YoungManKlaus]

the article clearly states its all about distribution of these photos, which is a totally different thing and aims exactly at preventing revenge-porn-sites and similar crap. Of course you can keep smutty stuff if you dont release it and/or show it to others (though I think its your job to prove you didnt)

Re:Lost in translation

[Ardyvee]

If we can get confirmation from somebody else, can we get this modded up? And possibly moved up?

Re:Lost in translation

[YoungManKlaus]

Jeah, you are right, I just read this part...

wurden einvernehmlich zahlreiche Bildaufnahmen der Klägerin gefertigt [...] die sie [...] dem Beklagten in digitalisierter Form überlassen hat. Mit der Klage geltend gemachte Ansprüche es zu unterlassen, die Aufnahmen Dritten oder der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen, hat der Beklagte anerkannt.

but didnt read the follow-up

Das Landgericht hat den Beklagten darüber hinaus verurteilt, die in seinem Besitz befindlichen elektronischen Vervielfältigungsstücke von intimen Aufnahmen der Klägerin vollständig zu löschen.

Though it is very hard to say what went on behind the scenes ... because if the guy is a photographer it might be likely he threatened her with releasing the stuff or some similar bullshit (because lets be serious, what normal person really sues ex-partners for deleting all old photos?)

A complicated thing.

[drolli]

What really worries me about this is that such a thing cant be enforced or checked without decrypting all my storage, how unrelated it may be.

I find that court rulings should have the property of being enforcable without confiscating all of my stuff if i am not guilty (or accused) of any crime.

Does that include

[gelfling]

Film and movies, paintings and drawings. What about sexy letters to each other?

"I know it when I see it" ?

[cellocgw]

So being clothed and provocative is OK, but being nude (and potentially not provocative) isn't?

What if you jump the Mediterranean: can you be forced to delete all pictures of your ex in which she's not wearing a full hijab?

Got any nude photos of your wife or girlfriend?

[reboot246]

No? Wanna see some?

It's a joke.
Wow, tough crowd today.

Well, if you cant keep them..

[nurb432]

Share them ... with everyone ..

This is bs, you are part owner of the images, restricting your rights is wrong.

Not quite the same.

[DerekLyons]

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

Not quite true. While both the "revenge porn" laws and the German ruling hinge on consent, they're otherwise very different. Those initiatives target publication of the pictures based on intent (to shame, humiliate, or degrade), this ruling targets possession of the pictures based on content (nudity).

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[spire3661]

Send it to a REAL photo house like http://www.whcc.com/

The only places that will be little bitches about this stuff are the ones that primarily service everyday consumers.

Re:That means you could consent to sexual intercou

[celle]

"...then later withdraw that consent and file rape charges against your partner."

      Haven't you noticed, this is exactly what's been going on the last few years.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[HiThere]

IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.

OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat. I don't know, YMMV. Personally I'd be tempted to digitize it in pieces, and stictch the pieces together digitally, though getting the rotation exactly identical in each segment while scanning is a big problem. You also need to either use specialized software or to scan in such a way that there's a bit of overlap between scans along each edge (except, obviously, the external ones).

Sentences that start in the headline

[wonkey_monkey]

And finish in the article are annoying.

A German amateur photographer has found out after his ex-girlfriend took him to court

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[dotgain]

Now that we have computers with fast processors and amounts of memory sometimes in excess of 128MB, automatically stitching together a canvas from several smaller ones is completely automatic and fast.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Registered Coward v2]

IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.

A good digital SLR with a quality lens and a copy stand should be able to make a decent enough copy for preservation purposes.

OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat.

You won't get that decent of a print anyway at those places. I'd go with a decent online shop that can supply machine specific color calibrations and calibrate the monitor if you want a decent print.

What a surprise

[Draugo]

Well, women can already withdraw consent after sex (in some cases a long time after) and get men to prison for rape, this is just a milder case of that.

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[Maxo-Texas]

So we disagree.

If someone gives me a gift while sober and sane, I don't consider myself a wanker if I keep decide to keep the gift when they change their mind four years later.

Your assertion is your opinion and has no more value than mine.

In my case, it's especially true because she never asked anyone to delete photos. She was very proud of her boobs and happy to share pictures of them with us.

And the number of united states residents who do NOT "use too much fat, sugar and watch mindless crapp" exceeds the population of several european nations so please don't stereotype us. We are a complex population with a wide range of behaviors and beliefs.

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[Maxo-Texas]

No, my question was exploring the limits of the ruling.

i.e.

If you are not in a relationship and someone shares nude photos.
If you are in a relationship and they have nude photos plastered all over the place because they are a nude model.
If you are in a public space and take a picture of someone who is nude in a public space.

People capable of rational thought discuss issues and explore their limits, boundaries, and implications. If you don't want to see "dumb" questions, don't read internet discussion forums.

I'm sure I've asked some howlingly dumb questions in my life but I don't consider this one to be particularly dumb or especially inappropriate for a discussion about the subject matter.

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[ColdSam]

People capable of rational thought discuss issues that need discussion, not trivial cases of no merit. You are not testing any reasonable limits or boundaries if you are asking whether the German courts would force you to delete photos that nobody asked you to delete.

If you want to pose a hypothetical scenario where the girl, who you were never in a relationship with, does demand that you delete the photos then that is more interesting, but only slightly so. In that case the situation is only 99% clear, as opposed to 100% in your "because this has happened" scenario.

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[Maxo-Texas]

Since I was sent nude picture by a girl who I was not in a relationship with, the question was a reasonable one to ask.

Time to drop this thread. Peace out.

Re:So if a girl sexts me and we are not in a relat

[ColdSam]

You strongly implied that you would not give back nude pictures from a friend who asked for them back, which AC rightly pointed out would make you a scumbag. That may have not been what you meant to say, but you did. IF you actually were a scumbag then your original question certainly would be a reasonable question to ask.

Sounds fair to me

[WillAffleckUW]

Isn't it funny that Germans have more rights than Americans?