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.

Comments

Seems pretty reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the photographer has an actual proof of commercial compensation for the work, it's a law I think other countries should adopt as well.

Not sure why it would take a court ruling for him to do so, in any case - I cannot think of a reason somebody with a shred of common decency and manners would fail to comply with such a request from an ex...

(Bonus points for the captcha - "Consent")

Re: Seems pretty reasonable

[gnasher719]

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.

Some rights cannot be waived. And it should be obvious that the only permission that is given in that situation is for the private use as long as both sides agree.

It would be different if she had given permission to a random person, but it's obvious that permission was given based on having a relationship to the photographer, and once that relationship is gone, the permission is gone.

Just yesterday I gave permission to my garage to drive my car (to find some problem with the car). It's obvious that this permission is time limited for as long as it takes them to find the fault. And not longer.

Jurisprudence

[sosume]

This is insane! Besides an enforcement issue (Will the government check this man's belongings to make sure there are no backups?) The photos are his property as he is the photographer. This is a disturbing ruling. Now the subject gets to decide on how the artist portrays it. I modeled nude for a painting class a decade ago, can I have all these paintings destroyed?

Re:Are they all gone? Check the backups!!

[bjhonermann]

To some extent, it doesn't exactly matter whether he fully complies. Yes, destroying the files and getting it out of his hands is part of the purpose but there's a secondary purpose likely as well. It also establishes that should the images or video subsequently get released somewhere, that he's been in violation of the court order and would be liable not just for privacy issues (which can be hard to establish) but also for contempt of court.

Basically, raises the bar to disincentivize the behaviour.

Re:Are they all gone? Check the backups!!

[omnichad]

Only if it could be proven that they weren't stolen beforehand. Or if he deleted the files in good faith but there was an unintended backup copy compromised. Incremental backups are hard to remove individual files from - and you could argue that destroying entire file backups is an unreasonable demand.

Still completely contradictory

[s.petry]

Basically the German court came to a completely contradictory ruling. The man obtained the photo's legally and with consent. The person changing their mind well after the fact is like a person claiming "I was raped for the full duration of our relationship because I no longer consent.". Go read the definition of consent. You don't have to like the logical equivalency I just gave, but revoked consent for past actions is exactly why the court told this man to destroy his property.

As the AC above states, this means that the court order itself is useless after the case is over. During the case the guy consented to the courts request to destroy stuff. After the case he can revoke his consent, and the courts already ruled that it was fine to do so.

I'll give you that there should be a buffer zone for consent, especially to something like photos (sexually graphic or not). I'll further give you that consent does not count at all if a person is drugged or drunk. Those things are not what happened. Actors deal with this kind of thing all the time in their contracts. Once you consent the holding company must abide by their end of the deal , but can do with what you consented to as seen fit in agreement with consent. If the images get used in a way that was not agreed to the actor goes to court against the holding company. If there is only consent then there are NO restrictions. In the case that the holding company never does anything with the material, there would not be a court case (at least that would not be called frivolous).

So in a sense the courts ruled that this guy was guilty of a crime he never committed, in addition to ruling that consent has no meaning because you can revoke consent on past completed actions. In case I'm still too vague, that last part makes their ruling contradictory.

Re:Still completely contradictory

[Kjella]

There's a reason most contracts and licenses use the word "irrevocable", because by default I can change my mind. The court found that even though he took the pictures with her permission, she retains personal integrity rights governing possession and use of the pictures that shows intimate areas and sexual activity. Like you could show ordinary photos of your ex-gf to your friends without consent, but not the sex photos. And hypothetically that would be an ongoing consent that could be given or revoked at any time. The German court found those rights extend to possession, if you possess intimate material of someone you must delete them on request, unless you have an explicit agreement to the contrary.

It should be noted that some of these sex photos had found their way to the woman's husband through unknown third parties and the court goes far to hint that if he were to retain possession it is not certain the remaining material would be treated with the appropriate care to protect against unauthorized viewing. In short, they can't prove he maliciously send or spread those pictures but they're going to take away his means to do it again. Then again if you suspect they might be spread illegally well you should also suspect a copy will be kept illegally, but it adds legal ammo. Honestly I think it's a very reasonable and narrow ruling, it only applies if the following three conditions are met:

1) They are made informally, no written terms
2) They're intimate in nature
3) The subject has requested it

consent to viewing & possession of private ph

[raymorris]

What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.

One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today. If I were the judge, I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but it's logically consistent. If I were the judge, I'd probably tell him "don't be a dick" and try to find a way to encourage him to grow up, without setting precedent. For example if they are also fighting over some physical property, I might suggest to his attorney that being a dickhead doesn't endear him to the court on the issue of the television set or whatever else they are arguing about.

Re:Thats a ruling to keep the lawyers happy...

[penguinoid]

Next up, a pornstar decides she changed her mind and all those pictures must be destroyed...

Re:consent to viewing & possession of private

[Anonymous Coward]

and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today.

What about his memories? Is he no longer allowed to think about her?