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?!
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")
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?
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."
Does his consent to support her stop when the relationship ends? No fucking way. He has to work two jobs now to keep her "in the lifestyle she is accustomed to" until she dies, even though the relationship has ended and he doesn't even get to keep even a few mementos from it.
Now there's only 20 billion naked chick pics left on the Internet. We need more Porn now!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
So if they did the photo's for art, wouldn't both of them have intellectual property rights?
Yea, im bored stuck at work...
Son, you spend too much time with computers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Will the enforcement/compliance be something along the lines of "pics or it didn't happen"?
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.
And just why might German law have more privacy support than any other European nation? Trying to cover up some wrongs that are still going on, just might be the reason. A few billion dollars might be turned up, that need to be restored to those whose wealth was stolen, would be a great reason for strict privacy laws.
German court cases have no virtually effect on the English speaking countries. So unless you're a data center or married to a Valkyrie, this case has more of an academic than practical interest.
However, the BBC article and apparently even the German ruling itself, which is linked in the BBC article, refer to "intimate" rather than simply naked photos. Quoting from the first paragraph, and hoping I don't run afoul of German copyright law:
Even without the usual Google translate copy pasta, we can see the German word for intimate used twice in the phrases "intimen Bezeihung", intimate relationships, and "intime Bild- oder Filmaufnahmen", intimate photos and videos. I'm not patient enough to process the PDF file but I did stumble upon the German phrases for "wearing only underwear", so I can conclude that the ruling isn't limited to naked photos but extends to embarrassing photos, perhaps even something as innocent as a kiss.
You are confusing the german law system that is based on actual laws and the US/British precedent based "law system".
This opens up a the whole idea of what was agreed to during the relationship as being void afterwards:
Oh, the lawyers are going to be able to buy lots of goodies with the money that they will make over this!
The one good (AC -1) post in several thousands that makes me still read everything (when I'm bored).
They already made a porn, and she consented to being part of it. Softcore or hardcore, doesn't matter. What she did was consent to the production (especially if she took the shots herself) and distributed to them. At this point, the only thing legally relevant is copyright claims in the film. However, the unholy alliance of feminists and white knights sees yon damsel in distress and must sally forth to do battle with the dragon which is an ex-boyfriend who might distribute it at some point in the future.
How about this? You don't want to star in a porno, don't bloody make a porno of any sort, and send it to someone else. I swear, people today are absolutely barking mad in their demand for privilege and naivete about the nature of the Internet and humanity. Up next: don't want to be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime when your ex gets pangs of conscience? Don't commit one.
To be fair to him: this is largely a theoretical issue.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
... For the slashdot audience.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Let's not forget Germany already has the oddest photography laws of all western countries. It is the only country that effectively makes the art of street photograph illegal: you should have consent of all people in your picture, even in public places. All pictures of the Berlin Wall being taken down would be illegal if taken today. There's a reason Germany doesn't have Google Streetview.
In most countries, photographs are the property of the photographer and he can do with them whatever he wants (if it is not obviously damaging to the subjects). In Germany, that's not the case; photographers need consent not only to use pictures but even to take them. In that regard, Germany is unique and against that background, this ruling is no surprise. In fact it is completely consistent with the way Germany deals with photography in general.
0x or or snor perron?!
What I find interesting about this case isn't the result, but what probably led up to it. For this court case to happen, first the woman would need to ask her partner to delete nude photos/videos of her, he would need to refuse, she'd contact a lawyer, he still refused, they went to court, he refused to settle. This case had to be brewing for weeks or months before we got to this verdict, which would indicate this guy really really didn't want to delete those files.
How messed up does a person need to be to let things get to the point where a judge needs to order them to delete pictures of their ex off their computer? Let go, dude!
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
even though it might make your blood run cold, as per the ruling in that case, "I guess you gotta buy it."
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Fines or jail if caught. Germany is one. Kind of after the fact.
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.
Next up, a pornstar decides she changed her mind and all those pictures must be destroyed...
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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?
Pics, or it didn't happen!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And happy giftmas to you. Christians are minority that wants to dictate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
I'm gonna guess you write EULAs for a living.
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.
The problem with that argument is that there's no basis in law for it. He doesn't need her consent to use a photograph he owns as erotica. If she didn't give her consent in the first place, that would be an invasion of privacy matter. If her consent were found to be invalid (because it was coerced, or because she was underage, etc.) then the court could correctly deprive him of ownership of it (even without getting into the criminal implications of such a scenario). If he were infringing on her rights of publicity (by using her image in an ad, let's say), then he might owe her damages but would still in theory own the photograph. If she was actually the one who took the photograph, then she could probably assert copyright. But wanking to something you legally own doesn't require anybody else's approval.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and I certainly haven't studied German law
You mean that this one-paragraph exerpt from BBC news that reports something that happened in Germany now let the cat out of the bag and gives a legal loophole to sue everyone for anything?
They didn't have to define "intimate". The actual ruling lists (in paragraph 4) the type of pictures that must be deleted (naked/partially naked with breast or reproductive organs visible/dressed only in underwear/pictures where it is obvious that they have been taken directly before, during, or after intercourse).
...Or any actor retroactively decides they want more money.
The difference here would be a contract. The film makers can prove they own the works of art. My guess is that the gentleman in the featured article could not.
Except that the distinction between a legal marriage and a mere relationship potentially does make a difference. If they had been married, in most countries, the wife would probably have be entitled to the rights to half of the photos as part of the divorce settlement, and could potentially have traded the other half for something else of comparable value (in either direction). So the generic "partner" actually loses important precision. That's why most people who are even remotely analytical find the term so incredibly annoying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Happy solstice!
The roommate and I celebrated yesterday by watching science documentaries and drinking b33r. (Perhaps it technically should have been on the 21st iirc, but close enough.)
I'm confused. Why you think anyone wants to keep you from saying, "merry Christmas?" I wished a co-worker a merry Christmas a little bit ago when she wished me one. I didn't experience agony. It's not like saying Ni!
It is called a Marriage contract and it is signed.
And what about everywhere else they exist?
There's no such thing as Destroying The Negatives, never really was. Any "control" over Imaginary Property that's been released in the wild is voluntary at best.
If a quarantine was maintained (knowledge is a contagion) and the photos were distributed under agreed conditions (eg nondisclosure) then they can be considered isolated and treated as property, ie your ex must forfeit them, is accountable for disclosure.
Unconditional distribution is a global release. No court, no dictator can take the piss out of the pool if you already told someone your secret recipe for mango-celery salsa.
"Of course I deleted those photos."
But I'm not enough of a jerk to actually post them online. Telling me I can't have something you gave me anymore just pisses me off, and it's flat out wrong it shouldn't make a difference what it is. Publicizing is different tho. People need to get over their hangups about sex and nudity anyway... it's ridiculous that society is this advanced but a naked picture can ruin your life.
I too wish they had used a more specific label.
Happy solstice and merry Christmas!
It sounds what is lacking is legal documentation of her permanent consent and that the judge is saying default consent within a relationship is within the relationship.
This sounds related to "prenuptial" agreements to me.
If he had gotten her to sign a model's consent form and specified how she was being compensated for the images and videos, then his rights would be permanent.
But what of any 3rd party they may have had sex with? What if they also have photos given with consent during a three way? There is no relationship to end there. Is the judge saying the photos and videos were only good during the evening and ended with the evening? What of the persons right to record their own life?
And what of public nudity and photos taken of people naked out in public? Is there some kind of implicit permission or does a person have a right to their "likeness" even then? ( and is that right for everyone or only for celebrities?)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
From the featured article:
If someone maintains that their ex-partner was willing for the photos to be used after the end of the relationship, that consent would still have to be proven, according to the new ruling, Ms Weber argued.
But in this case it really does apply: Hitler.
This is nonsense.
His probable reaction should be to photoshop all of the photos to put her in sweatpants and sweatshirts, add about 100 pounds to her weight, then release them as proof he's destroyed the original.
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?
Apparently there is an experimental way to erase memories with a laser. Hopefully something like that will never become a court-ordered procedure.
When it comes to your political stance of privacy issues, be very careful what wish for...
Eh, just wait until gynoids are perfected. It'll be interesting to see what happens to this faux idea of "consent" when men no longer need to take legal risks to fill the natural need for sex.
Well, never mind. What will probably happen is more crap like an article from a while back where some woman was blaming all men for her poor dating skills and managed to get media attention for this.
I mean, I understand the concern was that he was going to use them for revenge porn. Don't we generally wait until after the crime before the courts get involved unless there's a clear and imminent danger to life, limb, or property? I'm no expert on German law, but if they have actionable precrime there, I may reconsider whether I want to take up their offer of free tuition for anyone in the world who wants it.
I don't know. Things like this make me thankful I'm not attracted to women.
Hope you had a happy solstice!
I'm not a German lawyer either, though I was once an American student of the law.
Not being any kind of expert in German law, I don't know that under German law the photos ARE his property. They may be community property. German law might provide her with applicable privacy rights. The "right to be forgotten " reminds us that not every country has the same laws as the US.
This idea actually seems to be a good one. Not sure if the law is worded well enough to stand up to abuse but it actually puts legal definitions around what should be known already: when you end a relationship, it changes how you relate to the things shared with that person.
I'm kinda surprised so many are considering this a "change in consent" or "going back and changing your mind after the fact". It's not. When a relationship changes, the way you relate to that person changes. Another way to think of it is: the consent for sharing intimate things changed when you are no longer intimate with that person....so no "changing your mind" but it's recognizing what already happened.
As far as comments of "if you don't want pictures shared, then don't let them be taken". So, because something might be abused later, don't partake in it? What a sad way to live. Safe yes, but so is never drinking, never leaving the house, etc. Pick your risky behavior and insert here.
Being in a relationship is by definition trusting that person more than others, otherwise it's just, at best, friends with benefits. Ending the relationship is backing down on how much you share with the other person, so of course trusting them with pictures like that has changed.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
> The judge is effectively reversing the burden of proof..
The burden of proof relates to proving facts, not matters of law.
The fact is that she does not consent to his possession of these private pictures of her. The interesting question is a question of LAW: under the applicable law, does it matter whether or not she consents? A question of law such as this is decided by a judge reading the text of the law and considering the reasoning used in prior cases. There is no fact to prove, so burden of proof isn't relevant. The judge is deciding whether German law allows him to keep "her" private photos without her consent. The facts (which can be proven or disproven) are not in dispute.
There is a distinct probability that the German court would be infringing copyright treaties that the German government has agreed to. The photographer owns those all copyrights to those photos, as they were taken with consent, published or unpublished.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
And then the Judge looks at the contracts, slowly shaking their head, and points towards the door.
See what happens when you finish a thought instead of an almost mindless knee-jerk action?
Well, the German legal system isn't exactly German really. They had some help writing it and were kind of forced into it because they'd shown that they couldn't be trusted to do so on their own. It's hardly fair to say that it's not based on the US/British legal systems when it has some similarities and was, shall we say, "heavily influenced" by those other countries.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Not what happened, and if it does happen that way it's going to have to involve sending a lot of money in the direction of lawyers to get them interested.
I don't know if you are mixing up criminal law (governments pay) and civil law (litigants pay) but it looks like it. Utter bastards trying to turn civil issues such as copyright into criminal issues are of course confusing the issue, but even with that sting you suggest it is not something the police are going to care about so the stinger is going to have to "lawyer up".
So sorry to say but it doesn't even hold up as a soap opera plot.
Well, I don't want to Godwin the thread but you know what happened the last time we let Germany get a bit zealous, right?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A photographer also owns copyright to images they take without consent, the two are unrelated. The standard model release many photographers use has separate sections for each. They do cross a bit, I suppose , if the image happens to be a copy of a copyright protected work - a photo of a painting.
Privacy is a separate issue. A peeping Tom owns the copyright to his pictures- that doesn't mean privacy laws disappear.
Again, I wouldn't have ruled for the woman, based on the facts we know and what little German law we know. The reason I wouldn't is because I don't know of any concept in German law that gives her the right to consent or not at this point.
Short and simplified answer: Taking paparazzi photos in private situations and publishing them is already illegal in Germany.
Bad for the yellow press, but no big deal for the freedom of press (other laws and decisions are another matter entirely). The decision was made in compliance with basic rights that also apply to celebrities.
So, if I read all this correctly, this would apply even if the photo was of the (then) happy couple, taken remotely. But why should HER right to privacy automatically trump HIS right to own a memento of the relationship? In the absence of any actual attempt by a guy to use a twosome pic in an underhanded way, it doesn't quite seem fair to force him to destroy such a photograph (or whatever).
Why am I mercilessly mocked just for who I am?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
*Naked* images would just be disrespectful in this case. At least get them sleeved or framed! Geez!
Well, the German legal system isn't exactly German really. They had some help writing it and were kind of forced into it because they'd shown that they couldn't be trusted to do so on their own. It's hardly fair to say that it's not based on the US/British legal systems when it has some similarities and was, shall we say, "heavily influenced" by those other countries.
"German law is mainly based on early Byzantine law, specifically Justinian's Code, and to a much lesser extent the Napoleonic Code." - English or even American Law, not so much.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Next up, a pornstar decides she changed her mind and all those pictures must be destroyed...
As opposed to the state deciding she was too young?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I didn't say that it was based on 'em. I said "heavily influenced." If you go through your history books and read about what happened in the five or so years after the end of WWII then you'll see what I'm referring to. The Allied Forces spent a lot of money, time, and effort rebuilding and teaching them to think for themselves. They heavily influenced the whole process of turning them into a democracy, including specifics with the laws. The Allies weren't just going to let them keep the same regulations. They simply couldn't be trusted to do so.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."