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.

4 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Jurisprudence by sosume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Re:Are they all gone? Check the backups!! by bjhonermann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Are they all gone? Check the backups!! by omnichad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re: Seems pretty reasonable by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.