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.
How would the court ever know if he has fully complied with the order?!
Yep. Consent this; intimate that... this ruling is going to come back to bite a lot of people in the ass. And just wait until they try figuring out what the burden of proof is for "destroy."
Exactly which rights of the holder of the material are being violated?
Are these rights "more equal" than the rights of the subject to have control over intimate depiction of her body and/or engagement in sexual acts?
Again, unless the photographer has an actual proof such material was created under commercial contract, in my opinion they have absolutely zero "rights" to any such images/movies against the will of the person being depicted in them.
Feel free to explain your vehement objection to my opinion with less fervor and more factual content, please.
In order to ensure compliance, they'd have to effectively set his privacy rights aside altogether.
This is why I get so sick and tired of the people who come rushing to the defense of women who take naked selfies, do sex tapes, etc. You want to see privilege and entitlement? You take a bunch of pictures and videos and send them to someone and then sick the government on them, forcing them to effectively upend their own privacy rights over mere continued possession.
Check your privilege, honey.
Why does a photographer need proof of commercial compensation in order for a work to have aesthetic value?
If a work has aesthetic value and all participants at the time it was created agreed to its creation (arguably a form of verbal contract) then what gives any party, other than the photographer as the creator of the content, any special rights over the content? The subject might have rights to the content if used for public exhibition or commercial purposes, but I don't see any reason why the subject, if of legal age and in a position to consent to having an image taken, should have the right to revoke that consent at a later time such that it compels the artist in question to destroy their work.
I will say this much, lots of people are bloody stupid and don't understand that they absolutely should not consent to having photos taken of them in the nude or in sexual congress unless they've fully considered both the ramifications of how they feel about those pictures potentially being seen by absolutely everyone and how this could impact their lives down the road, but that's the choice of the subject that willfully puts themselves into that position.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Inclusivity isn't PC; it's generic. Or rather, it's not needlessly over-specific. If some fuckwit (e.g. you) were to write that he has to delete pictures of his ex-girlfriend, then some other fuckwit might then ask, "But this doesn't apply to ex-wives, right, since that was a different type of agreement?" or "This doesn't apply to ex-boyfriends, since dudes have different nudity standards," or other irrelevant bullshit.
By being inclusive, you say the most. It's high-performance use of language. And if you're against performance, then you're not merely "anti-PC" but you're anti-nerd. You're a "linguistic luddite."
The trick is inclusivity without loss of correctness. (e.g. "Person," though more inclusive than "partner," would be wrong.) This ties in with how you should write a scientific hypothesis. (Again, for maximum performance, rather than PCness.) You should make your falsifiable hypothesis as broad as you can, while still maintaining falsifiability (correctness). That way, as you test it, you get the most knowledge.
If you don't understand this, then not only will you not make it as a judge/lawyer or a social commentator, but you won't make it as a scientist either. So you probably ought to drop the PC chip on your shoulder and start learning to become a less stupid person, and get over your fears that speaking non-stupidly will cause the other Idiocracy characters to say you "talk like a fag." Those idiots are missing 99% of the discussion, so it's not really surprising that their noise-polluted inferences go off in all sorts of weird random directions.
Hear, hear. Mod up. I'm really sick of the Luddites and technophobes on this site; I thought this was supposed to be a site for smart, nerdy people, not a bunch of angry old men in their rocking chairs complaining about how they had to walk uphill 40 miles both ways to school every day.
I am smelling a troll. You start with an ad hominem and then ignore my example. The example I provided was for contracts under common law. You claim that your (this) case is special and your contract is not a contract. I guess by way of fairy farts and unicorns this contract can be declared something else in your world. (a verbal agreement is a contract)
Your example of the modeling contract exception proves my point, though you probably don't get (or if you are trolling don't care). If there is no contract specifying limitation there is no limitation. A closed contract is closed, the end. There could be damages if the pictures were misused, but they were not misused. Even if the guy said in anger to her that he could publish the pictures later, until he does so there is no crime.
No wrong doing, and no criminal case against this person makes it very obvious that he was sued for the _potential_ to do harm. The court deemed him capable of a future crime. I think you are capable of future crime too, so you should be jailed for what ever the State decides you might do in the future. Justice must be equally applied or it's not justice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.