Slashdot Mirror
German Court Orders Man To Destroy Naked Images of Ex-Partner (bbc.com)
AmiMoJo sends this report from the BBC: Germany's highest court has ordered a man to destroy intimate photos and videos of his ex-partner because they violate her right to privacy. The Federal Court said the man, a photographer, should no longer possess naked photos and sex tapes, even if he had no intention of sharing them. The woman had originally agreed to the images but this consent stopped when the relationship ended, the court said. Germany has some of the strictest privacy laws in Europe.
Your issue with enforcement is ridiculous - the government is also incapable of stopping every murder and ensuring that no one at this very minute is committing murder, but it's still illegal to murder people and you will get in trouble if you get caught.
Your statement about the photos being his property is the very thing the court is weighing in on, and as far as the German court is concerned, you're absolutely wrong. Though the auto-translation of german is pretty broken, it's clear enough that the court(s) have decided that, at least in Germany, a person has control over their image and privacy, and this right supersedes the property ownership a photographer may claim unless some sort of legal waiver/contract was made. This isn't a blanket card for someone to withdraw consent as within your example of consenting to a nude painting class; presumably in your instance you signed a waiver to your rights, and the court order does not apply in that situation. (Again, as best can be determined from what translate.google offers)
The court is specifically ruling on arrangements between two people in a relationship who share intimate photos without any formal contract between them, and the ruling is simply that each person has a right to control of their image and privacy. This is a good thing and likely is to directly combat the idea of revenge porn and to provide some legal recourse should such an event occur. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared an intimate picture.
She waived her right to privacy when she agreed to the production of the pictures/videos. He however would be out of line and infringing on her privacy were he to share the media outside the two of them, which he apparently did.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Before declaring a ruling contradictory, you should first read it; you can find it here. I recommend you read it in full.
In particular, the court didn't judge that the taking of the pictures itself was illegal in any way, after all she did consent to the pictures being taken within the context of their relationship. However, she did not consent to the pictures being taken for any other purpose, in particular, the pictures weren't meant for publication. Since she still holds personality rights over the pictures, consent can potentially be withdrawn. (This is where pictures differ from your sex analogy: after sex is over, it's done, but after pictures are taken you still hold certain personality rights over the pictures, at least in Germany.) The court concedes that it isn't always entirely clear where to draw the line, but because the photographer had publicised pictures without consent before, and because there is reasonable doubt that the photographer would take proper care to shield the pictures from third parties, and because some of the pictures were nude and/or sex pictures, and because intimate pictures can be used to hold some measure of control over someone, and because the consent was given in the context of a relationship which since has ended, in this case consent could be withdrawn, albeit just for the nude and/or sex pictures, not for the regular clothed ones. Therefore the court ordered the pictures to be destroyed.
The ruling doesn't say that taking these pictures is retroactively illegal (such a concept doesn't really exist in German law) nor that keeping the pictures until now was unlawful (although publicising them may/would have been) but not obeying the order to destroy them would be (it would be contempt of court). Of course, the court cannot easily check if its order has been executed completely, but that isn't unique to this situation. Should the photographer later leak pictures that were supposed to be destroyed, he could be charged not just with unjust publication but also for disobeying a direct order from a federal court.
This post is of course a rough summary, for the details you'll have to read the judgement yourself. As a final note, it's important to consider the societal backdrop against which this all happens. People are nowadays less hesitant to share nudes with their partners, mainly because they share pictures of anything and everything, but also revenge porn is on the rise, and the potential for blackmail and psychological manipulation is tremendous. The law will have to adapt to this new reality and clinging to the simplistic view that pictures are just property aren't likely to do society any good.