Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Court Rules That You Can't Keep Compromising Photos After a Break-Up

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the talk-about-hard-to-enforce dept.

Privacy 334

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "A German amateur photographer has found out after his ex-girlfriend took him to court, which ruled that the subjects of smutty pictures can withdraw their consent if they're naked. [News release in German.] The shutterbug was able to keep the clothed pictures, however, as they weren't considered to compromise the reputation of the woman in question."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 5 months ago | (#47084541)

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

Re:Ridiculous (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084601)

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally. If people want to play with their toys in their bedrooms, that is their own business. In this case, a camera is a toy. Once a relationship is over, they can keep the camera, but the images should be the property of those in them. If more than one person? Cut out the others.

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 5 months ago | (#47084631)

No alcoholic or chain smoker plans to become addicted when they buy that first bottle of whisky/pack of cigarettes either, but that doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't take into consideration.

What this court case shows is that this woman is a poor judge of character. And instead of taking the opportunity to learn something, she just sues, making sure nothing is resolved and in fact (by winning) positively reinforcing her poor people judging skills.

Re:Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

s.petry (762400) | about 5 months ago | (#47084901)

Not just a bad analogy, but absolutely wrong in just about every possible way. Which of course means your opinion of right and wrong is horribly skewed, therefor your opinion on the subject is wrong. I'll start with the fact that relationships, contrary to what Pop music stars and TV celebrities tell you, are healthy.

The only possible reasons to keep adult photo's after a relationship ends are unethical and immoral. Either the person wants to use them for revenge/smear purposes, or they are unable to cope with the termination of the relationship and need something to cling on to, or perhaps they have a porn collection that they want to supplement with an old girlfriend for masturbatory purposes. In all cases, that is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders.

To claim that a relationship is wrong, or that two consenting adults planning a long term relationship can't do things in the bedroom is social retardation at it's finest.

If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous. If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same. If the person got off picturing their ex all the time, we'd consider them psychopaths. Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is that they are not very different at all when used in sociological / psychologically disruptive ways.

Germany has this one right.

Re:Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084983)

Your trollish comment is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders, being so unethical and immoral. How do you like those apples?

Re:Ridiculous (5, Insightful)

eibo (1205340) | about 5 months ago | (#47085045)

Have you considered that maybe your view of relationships might not be universal? There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative. If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex it apparently has been a time well spent with this person. It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.

Re:Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

Lost Race (681080) | about 5 months ago | (#47085083)

Wow, that's ten tons of crazy piled into a half-ton pickup.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.

As far as the case in Germany goes... It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb. Are they also going to demand that he forgets what she looked like naked? As long as he keeps the photo to himself, what's the difference between that and a memory? Nothing.

Keeping a photo as a reminder of a pleasant experience in your past is by no means crazy or immoral. That's exactly what photo albums are for, and why everybody keeps them! Just because you have a picture of someone (naked or otherwise) doesn't mean you obsess or masturbate to it. My shoebox of old travel photos (including various ex-girlfriends) just sits in the closet until I get nostalgic once every year or five and have a look through it. No obsession, no masturbation, no reputations smeared.

So masturbatory fantasies are immoral? (3, Interesting)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 5 months ago | (#47085087)

Wait, so you're not allowed to masturbate while thinking of someone once you break up with them? It's now immoral to have sexual fantasies?

Does this mean a girl who masturbates while fondling a diamond ring she got from her ex needs to return the diamond ring?

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084633)

When you give go into someones bedroom and give consent to that person taking pictures you have entered a verbal contract.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084689)

When you give go into someones bedroom and give consent to that person taking pictures you have entered a verbal contract.

The court argues that the permission and the contract were meant for the length of the partnership.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084693)

You did enter a contract when taking the pictures, and the contract was that the images were intended was for mutual enjoyment. When the romantic relation is over, this contract is broken, therefore in principle you lose the right to use the images.

Wrong, asshole (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 5 months ago | (#47085143)

You did enter a contract when taking the pictures, and the contract was that the images were intended was for mutual enjoyment. When the romantic relation is over, this contract is broken, therefore in principle you lose the right to use the images.

You do not have the right to tell me who or what I'm allowed to take a picture of, and share with whomever I please.

No, I don't give a fuck what your corrupt government claims. It's immoral. If I take a picture, I own it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

If you don't want someone taking a picture of you naked and sharing it with the world, then the solution is simple: don't date somebody who would do such a thing.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

schekker (2819117) | about 5 months ago | (#47084697)

Yes, a verbal contract that those pictures are private. That is what the court says. If the photographer wanted to use those photographs once their relationship was over, he should have let her sign a contract. He didn't. I think the German court made a very wise decision here. One which says you should be able to trust your friend. And if that trust is misplaced, the courts will be on your side.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47084775)

"Verbal" contract? Yes, I know they're enforceable - but aren't they generally considered to be worth the paper they're printed on? Part of the premise here is that the 'verbal contract' covers . . . what? She clearly had an explicitly stated understanding that the pictures would be surrendered or destroyed upon the termination of their personal relationship - I'm sure she said something like that, which means I'm sure it was part of their 'verbal contract' (cynicism intentional).

That's the problem with "verbal" contracts - they rely on the he-said, she-said thing to determine what the contract actually was. The simple words "I never said that" are generally enough to throw any verbal contract into doubt - unless there was a third party there to testify regarding the content of their agreement, or some verifiable act which supports the existence of such a contract. Courts end up using the "reasonable person" standard where such disagreements occur, and in this case a reasonable person would (in the estimation of the court) hold that rights to the intimate photograph endure only for the length of the personal relationship (since it's highly unlikely that there was a third party present during the intimite photography sessions).

I could be completely wrong. IANAL, let alone a German lawyer.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#47084729)

Cut out the others.

That's why I always make my partners where clothing made out of green screen. That way, I can later use Adobe Premiere to insert images of supermodels.

My last girlfriend, I was able to superimpose a couple of supermodels over all that green.

[OK, see that was a joke. Honey, if you happen to be reading this, I'm just having a little fun with the fellas on Slashdot, and that green lingerie I bought you had nothing to do with CGI.]

Re:Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 4 months ago | (#47084969)

So what you're saying is, your last girlfriend was (to you, at least) a Big Beautiful Woman. Nothing wrong with that, as long as that's what floats your boat. Just because today's fashion industry equates skinny with good looking doesn't mean that you have to follow their standards.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084977)

I am surprised in none of these lawsuits has anyone produced a non-disclosure agreement for signing at the beginning of the relationship reminiscent of the character Christian Grey in the book series 50 shades of grey. I guess I am the only guy who has read that book. Does this revoke a stamp on my geek card? I suspect I am just geeky about other things... I digress.

If legally corporations can be viewed as people, doesn't it follow that If I sign a non-disclosure agreement and then violate it after the employment contract is terminated and able to be found guilty of wrong doing, that the same violation of trust against a woman is in essence the same type of tort? Did I miss something? I know people will do what they will do, but as a man I think that revenge porn is something boys do, not men. My thoughts here is that the guy has some growing up to do, I am all for women being cautious and protecting themselves, but it takes 2 to tango.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#47084743)

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally.

Irrelevant. If the pictures aren't stored on their private property, then too bad for them.

And what makes naked pictures special? What is this puritan nonsense?

Re:Ridiculous (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | about 5 months ago | (#47084749)

So you're saying you disagree with the part of the ruling that said he could keep the clothed photos?

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085049)

So you're saying you disagree with the part of the ruling that said he could keep the clothed photos?

Not having read the ruling beyond the summary, I would if she asked for those as well. There might be an exception, if the fellow had personally compromising images before they entered into a relationship. Then getting those taken care of would be another case.

It isn't about a puritan point of view. It is about respect for another person. There isn't any thing that can considered respectful about holding onto those images when asked for them. I would consider this to be the best method to get rid of revenge porn sites without creating false positives.

An offline right to be forgotten?

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47085015)

This sounds like a tumblr army thing, any time you get your photo taken it is public and forever, that is just the way it is now. If you give consent to have your photo taken you have to keep in mind that everything goes on the internet now, the world is not going to get any less connected in the coming years. The ability to "revoke" consent retroactively is begging to be abused, if you don't want to be in porn, don't be in porn.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 5 months ago | (#47085025)

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally

Then they're obviously not paying attention since that is how the majority of their relationships will end.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085159)

Wrong, the pictures in a camera are the property of the owner of the camera.

Re:Ridiculous (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 5 months ago | (#47084695)

Let's fix that up a bit...

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera...

...and bounce up and down on your man-whore's rock-hard penis like a mad banshee and then let him pull his man-canon out of your wet wide she-trough and then allow your boy-toy "professional model" to spluge all over your face while slapping his cock on your lips on camera , you should not be surprised where that "tape" ends up.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084719)

So, what is your excuse for being retarded ?

Re:Ridiculous (5, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about 5 months ago | (#47084733)

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

If you want to include the word "should", then apply it where it belongs. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong. Personally the only way her having taken nude pictures impacts my view of her is that I now know she's a fun-loving person comfortable being attractive and sexual. She's not ashamed or repressed or otherwise convinced that the animal she is is somehow a bad thing.

There shouldn't be a big deal over being seen naked.

I get it that we're not there societally yet. I get it that because we're not there, there are consequences. But if we're going to talk about "should", let's put it where it belongs; we all should be comfortable in our natural state. That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084745)

Please don't post yours on the internet or we'd risk an epidemic of people pouring bleach into their eyes.

Bzzt....wrong (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 5 months ago | (#47085157)

. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong

Sorry, no. This is delusional thinking; the sort of thing that's common in a society that absolutely zero fucking clue what personal responsibility is. If your dumb ass allows your boyfriend to jizz in your face on camera, and he later posts it on the internet, thats your fault for being a foolish dumb ass. Next time don't be a dumb ass.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

monatomic (2612833) | about 5 months ago | (#47084753)

Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?

Re:Ridiculous (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 5 months ago | (#47084853)

Sharing private photos without permission is an invasion of privacy. Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context. Where do you get ideas like what you posted?

So if "Everybody has the right to control photos that were taken in a private context", and Tumblr is part of "Everybody", where's the problem?

Re:Ridiculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084915)

There are a lot of things where people should be responsible enough to understand the consequences of what they're doing, yet the reality is very different from these republican black and white ideals.

In Germany the age of consent is 14, where you're legally still a child and can't be held responsible for ton of stuff according to German law. While in the USA for example, until 2005 it was technically constitutional to apply capital punishment for crimes committed my minors. People can be mentally retarded and can't be held responsible for everything, the same goes in the USA. Then there's also a ton of laws concerning stuff like rape. For example before the law you can't consent to sex while you're under the influence, the same goes for the USA. But according to your logic they should have been responsible enough to think understand the consequences of drinking in the first place.
  Also, in Germany regulations for data security and privacy are a lot more rigorous. What the NSA does now in the USA Germany already had in a similar way with the Gestapo in Nazi Germany and later the StaSi in the GDR. The people learned from this and so did politicians to some degree, although they sometimes also wave the terrorists and 'think of the children' flags to promote invasion of privacy.
And in the end, this is a single case that was decided by a judge according to the circumstances of that case, which doesn't create a precedent like it would do in the USA, where the jurors also 'should' decide according to the circumstances of each single case.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084987)

There are a lot of things where people should be responsible enough to understand the consequences of what they're doing, yet the reality is very different from these republican black and white ideals.

In Germany the age of consent is 14, where you're legally still a child and can't be held responsible for ton of stuff according to German law. While in the USA for example, until 2005 it was technically constitutional to apply capital punishment for crimes committed my minors. ...

Scott Helvenston joined the US Navy at 16 and was a Seal at 17.

Not every minor is coddled and hiding in a basement.

Re:Ridiculous (2)

eibo (1205340) | about 5 months ago | (#47085151)

This is probably the core of this court decision: the judges share your opinion. They think taking pornographic pictures is indecent and no modest person should indulge in this. If you look closely you will notice, that this thinking needs some condemation of sexuality itself.

It is possible to think differently, though. I would even go as far as saying: Not taking pornographic pictures is an indicator for a lack of love of the other person or ones own body. As you said, you need to be responsible and talk about how these pictures may be used, but beyond that I cannot see any consequences you should fear.

Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084549)

I'm strongly in favor of a person's right to perpetual ownership of personally identifying information, including their likeness. It extends naturally from autonomy and the inherent right to one's own body, i.e. no slavery.

What's interesting is just how far from this idea technology has allowed us to travel, into a society which considers privacy intrusion as a right, rather than privacy.

Ramifications (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about 5 months ago | (#47084555)

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.

Re:Ramifications (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47084589)

Yes, we are getting on board the train for a slippery slope. ( well at lest the Germans are, the rest of the world isnt following... yet.. )

Re:Ramifications (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#47084725)

no worries, Germany has a stellar record of never actually falling down a slipperly slope

We're heading straight for a Godwin moment, here. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47084805)

Just sayin'.

portrait right (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 5 months ago | (#47084595)

Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally. The right to your portraits. This means that under certain circumstances, you can withdraw previous implicit permissions, because you did not sign a waiver.

Re:portrait right (1)

Threni (635302) | about 5 months ago | (#47084687)

No part of the comment makes any sense.

> Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally.

What does it mean for a picture to be `declared legally`?

> The right to your portraits.

?

> This means that under certain circumstances, you can withdraw previous implicit
> permissions, because you did not sign a waiver.

Withdraw permissions you didn't explicitly give someone? But...they weren't given in the first place, so how can they be withdrawn?

Re:portrait right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084959)

"Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally."
I think he meant "In several countries you have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally your property."

The point being that privacy and photography laws vary wildly among the countries in the world.
The French are very opposed to photography in places like restaurants. It's probably because they are usually up to no good.

In some countries, France for example, any photograph that has your picture in it belongs to you.
French law requires that a photographer get your permission before taking the photo.
Even if you give permission to be photographed, that does not grant the right to publish the photo.
Generally this only applies if the person is the main subject of the photo, so persons captured incidentally to photos taken of public gatherings and so on do not have rights to the picture, but even public photos can be barred from publication in some circumstances.

Public figures can be photographed and published only if it is related to their public duties and not private life.

Re:Ramifications (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#47084607)

Example #1: taking a picture of someone having sex in public. Clear and obvious privacy violation unless it's "in your face" kind of in public that is illegal.
Example #2: video of someone acting like a jerk: Define the following: a. Someone. b. Circumstances. c. "acting like a jerk". All of these impact the decision.

I'm guessing you're come from an anglo country and possess an anarchist/libertrarian bent. This article is about Germany. A good point of reference for you would be the following:

1. How you treat freedom of speech, they treat privacy.
2. How you treat privacy, they treat freedom of speech.

As a result, it would be pretty surprising if this was overturned.

Re:Ramifications (0)

xvan (2935999) | about 5 months ago | (#47085071)

If your "Anglo" culture includes the US...
1) They treat freedom of speech by caging it in "free speech zones".
2) They treat privacy by bugging the whole world in the name of security.

Yes, it could be a lot worse than that... but I see no evidence showing that the Anglo culture takes freedom nor privacy as core values.

Re:Ramifications (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 5 months ago | (#47084641)

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.

That was my thought as well but remember the story about right to be forgotten. That case said it's ok to censor someone and have them remove totally factual articles and links. It was the online equivalent of if you don't like what someone said about you in a book then they have to stop printing it and pull it from store shelves, and bookstores have to remove all traces of it ever existing from their system.

It would have been a totally different lawsuit if it happened across the pond. Here in the US this would have been Copyright and First Amendment (both explicitly given to the gov) vs something much more nebulous (defamation or publicity rights maybe). Of course, here in the US they've determined that the first amendment doesn't cover "obscene" speech. Pity they don't really define obscene.

Another thing is that in most marriages the assets are merged. It's always tricky to divide everything in the divorce. The common (American at least) feeling is "she gets everything, and he gets to keep the clothes on his back."

Re:Ramifications (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#47084771)

Why is it that Slashdot always seems to completely misunderstand all European court rulings?

The point is that the photographs were made in private, with the expectation of privacy. The girlfriend expected her boyfriend to keep them private at the time they were made. She gave consent for them to be taken on the grounds that they were a couple, and now they are not together the consent is withdrawn.

It would be bizarre for it to be any other way. In public no consent is required. Being a wanker in private would be protected though, unless there was a public interest argument. It isn't clear why anyone would consent to that in the first place though.

Re:Ramifications (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084859)

Because Slashdot is full of retards. Pretty fucking simple explanation.

Re:Ramifications (3, Informative)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 5 months ago | (#47084869)

The article is light on details, which is giving me some trouble forming an opinion. If the photographer published these pictures then I agree wholeheartedly that doing so is an invasion of the subjects privacy. On the other hand, if I were to take some intimate pictures of my partner solely for my own enjoyment* that's a different matter entirely.

*How much enjoyment is to be had depends on how clean or messy the break-up was, I suppose.

Re:Ramifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084797)

>As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright.

Which is trumped by the right to one's picture except for a few cases. American law doesn't apply in Germany.

Re:Ramifications (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084877)

FYI, photography isn't just a matter of copyright in Germany. There are other rights that need to be considered too. There are limits to what you can take pictures of.

One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.

Another limit is the right to ones own picture: You generally need permission to take pictures of people, but there are some exceptions: People who are just "Beiwerk", i.e. just random bystanders who are not a dominant part of the picture, don't need to be asked for permission. Another exception is anyone who implicitly agrees to be photographed (e.g. smiles into the camera, poses, etc.). There are several more exceptions. Some of these exceptions are limited to certain uses of the picture (e.g. not in advertising).

And then there's "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht", which loosely translates to personal rights. It's what this case is about. The Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a wide ranging right which in particular encompasses the right to privacy and protects the private sphere (innermost and most personal thoughts and feelings and sexuality). This is a very fundamental right and usually wins out over less fundamental rights, like that of a photographer to use the pictures he took.

Legal conflict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084931)

You coudl argue this case sets up a nice face-off between copyright law and the EU Directive on Data Protection (and the various laws enacting it in member states) - the data protection directive states that you are only allowed to store or process personal data for the purpose for which it is collected, and for as long as the Data Processor has a reasonable need to hold it for processing for that stated purpose. There is a pretty convincing argument that as naked photos are generally held to be personal data and as the videos were not originally made for the purpose of sharing with all and sundry the man is in breach of the Data Protection Act (or equivalent German law embodying the EUDDP) by publishing them, regardless of his rights as copyright holder (he is still only copyright holder of personal data protected under the Directive).

Re:Ramifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084947)

As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright.

In the US that is correct.

In various other countries the subject of the photo owns the copyright unless there is a written release assigning rights. The laws vary widely from country. In some places even for photos taken in public, if a person is the main subject of the photo, they own it and not the photographer.
Also, what constitutes "in public" varies. In some places only streets and parks are public, but malls, restaurants, museums, etc are not.

AFAIK, German law is more like US law, but is not identical.
  It also turns out that German law does not apply in the US, so I'm not sure about "far reaching ramifications".

Re:Ramifications (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 5 months ago | (#47085099)

Far reaching in the sense that anyone who wants to do business in germany has to figure out how to comply with the rules, which may be distinct from the rules where they are based.

Lets say the german photographer backed up his images to a google drive account. What (if any) responsibility does google have in enforcing a ruling like this?

What if the couple lived in Germany when they took the photos, but one party moved to another EU country? What about a non EU country? What about photographs taken while on holiday in france but brought back to germany (and variants) etc.?

Are there other things potentially on conditional contracts like this?

Re:Ramifications (1)

xbytor (215790) | about 5 months ago | (#47085033)

>then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone.

It can't. The problem is that there is (generally) no model release form. Posting photos anywhere would require written content of the model. I'm surprised I haven't heard of any cases using this idea. Or am I missing something.

Need better link (5, Insightful)

BradMajors (995624) | about 5 months ago | (#47084559)

This posting needs a better link. One that actually has some information.

Re:Need better link (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084591)

information

You mean illustration?

Re:Need better link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084597)

Yeah, where's the smutty pictures?

Re:Need better link (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47084653)

Would you settle for a really dirty picture [wordpress.com] instead?

Re:Need better link (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#47084701)

Wow, someone has soiled himself big time in that picture.

Re:Need better link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084871)

It's Germany, so you know there has to be some poo smearing involved.

Re:Need better link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084661)

dont feed the trolls

Re:Need better link (1)

Rhymoid (3568547) | about 5 months ago | (#47084613)

Agreed. TFA eventually leads to this 'source' [thelocal.de] , but it doesn't refer to actual court proceedings. This seems to be a much more authoritative source, by the way.

Re:Need better link (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 5 months ago | (#47084751)

The posting needs a summary with a coherent sentence.

Re:Need better link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084857)

In this case the court ruled against a professional photgrapher who has made pictures from his girlfriend that she allowed him to use for free at first (although her boyfriend would be able to generate revenue or at least reputation with these photos). After their breakup the girl wanted to retain her full rights of these pictures.

One has to mention that the girl herself is a professional photographer, too. In Germany it is generally not allowed to publish identifying pictures without the consent of the persons that the image shows, anyway. There is an excpetion for celebrities, of course, who can not claim this right.

So, in the present case it was something "unusual" because the girlfriend at first allowed the publication of images picturing her but later revoked her approval. Also, you have to remember that the case revolved around professional photographs who make money with these pictures.

Actually, in consent with what I've written before, it is illegal in Germany to post pictures of your friends (or better the friends of your friends) on social media sites if they have not explicitly approved that uploading is OK for them. However, this is usually ignored by the uploader and I am not aware of any case where someone went to court against his friend's friend who ignorantly uploaded their picture.

fuck the krauts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084605)

fucking hitler aint taking my mucky photos away

Re:fuck the krauts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085089)

You were dating Hitler?

Withdraw consent ???? After??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084625)

Hey I bought a shitty house, can I withdraw my consent?????

Re:Withdraw consent ???? After??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084893)

Apparently the Swedes let you withdraw consent for sex, after the fact. Thar be some messed up laws in this world.

Re:Withdraw consent ???? After??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085109)

even better, if you buy a shitty house you might (if you've fulfilled your obligations as a buyer) get your money back!

Serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084645)

TFS says the subjects of smutty pictures can withdraw their consent if they're naked". What if they're e.g. giving a blowjob with their clothes on?

What? I want to know!

Re:Serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084703)

You misunderstand. What that means is the photographed subject must strip down naked in front of the judge, say "I withdraw my consent regarding these smutty pictures", and then consent has been withdrawn.

Re:Serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084979)

TFS says the subjects of smutty pictures can withdraw their consent if they're naked". What if they're e.g. giving a blowjob with their clothes on?

What? I want to know!

CFNM [wikipedia.org] FTW!

I kinda see both sides. (0)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#47084649)

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

Re:I kinda see both sides. (1)

Threni (635302) | about 5 months ago | (#47084679)

Well, they can, though, because the photographer cannot sue. What's to stop them?

Re:I kinda see both sides. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084779)

Most photo printing places, including WalMart or Walgreens, will refuse to print the pictures without a written release from the photographer. I had a friend (who did photography as a side business) take pictures at my wedding. I was given the raw files and did all the post work myself. Without a letter they still refused me even though they were my pictures to print. Since I wasn't doing anything sketchy, I printed up my own release form. I also had to give copies of that form to everyone in our extended families.

Re:I kinda see both sides. (2)

Nyder (754090) | about 5 months ago | (#47084767)

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

I'm sorry, who is the stupid people here?

The people who make the laws without realizing the consequences that law will have every situation, or your parents (actually I'm referring to you, because you know better) for letting a stupid law trump common sense and digital preservation of something that is important to them, and in extent, your whole family?

Granted I know you are making an example, but it sucks. You are saying your parents can't make a digital copy of their wedding photos, when they can very much go make a digital copy of their photos. No one will stop them. Unless someone in their family got all bent out of shape because that broke some copyright law no one knows or cares about and won't let your parents make copies of them (and yes, I am looking at you for this.)

So either your story is bullshit, or you just made up parts to fit the convo here. Or I guess you are dumber then a box of rocks and the apple didn't fall far from the tree?

Re:I kinda see both sides. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084799)

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

The Photographer has the rights to the negative. What your parents have is a copy of that photo, and of course they can copy it as much as they like. What they can't have is the original negatives.

Re:I kinda see both sides. (1)

geezer nerd (1041858) | about 5 months ago | (#47084801)

Who is saying NO to the digitalization of the photo?

If you are a Slashdotter, then I imagine you have a scanner somewhere in your equipment repertoire. Just scan the photo yourself. Problem solved.

Re:I kinda see both sides. (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 4 months ago | (#47084953)

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.

Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.

Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.

Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.

Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.

Great!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084655)

Does this mean I can remove all the pictures of me drunk on Facebook???

Re:Great!! (2)

zugmeister (1050414) | about 5 months ago | (#47084675)

Does this mean I can remove all the pictures of me drunk on Facebook???

Are you naked in them?

Blowing it out of proportion (5, Informative)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 5 months ago | (#47084673)

I see that Americans are already blowing it out of proportion.

Remember: German legal system isn't based on precedents.

This ruling relates to a particular case and is valid for that single particular case. Nothing else. Other judges deciding other cases might or might not pay it any attention.

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084721)

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

In the USA, so far I've only seen articles about "thou shalt not distribute". This sounds more like "thou must giveth up".

Re:Blowing it out of proportion (1)

swillden (191260) | about 4 months ago | (#47084997)

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

In the USA, so far I've only seen articles about "thou shalt not distribute". This sounds more like "thou must giveth up".

Only because the summary is badly-written. What the ruling said was that consent could be withdrawn, which means the holder of the photos can't do the things allowed by copyright... namely make copies, display them publicly, etc.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085149)

in line with several legal initiatives in USA

Bad public policy in the US used to rationalize bad rulings in Germany.

Europe is pretty fucked up like that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084681)

Europe has a strange laws like that. A few years ago, on holiday in Denmark, I met a girl at a club, I went back to her house. She sucked me off, then asked me to orally satisfy her. Ok, off comes her dress and .... her cock is bigger than mine. Fuck that! The next I'm arrested for rape. He agreed that we had consensual sex but claimed it was rape because I agreed to suck his penis and then changed my mind. After a few hours in jail, I talked to a lawyer, paid a $50 rape fine, and I was free. Their culture is a mix of vikings ($50 fine for rape) and liberal pantywaists (hurting your feelings = rape). Strange system. So, just make sure you finger bang that pussy before you agree to orally satisfy a girl.

Re:Europe is pretty fucked up like that (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#47084735)

so had her cock been smaller than yours it would have been a fine evening?

Re:Europe is pretty fucked up like that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084777)

Every place is fucked up in one way or another. Try the Central African Republic right now.

Work From No Home Review (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47084685)

Work From No Home Review

It’s really very informative that I wanted ever, thanks for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jbN_r7N5Y

Crazy (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 5 months ago | (#47084789)

This is getting crazy. First some spanish judge rules your right to privacy lets to stop people learning about your bad behaviour. Now this? I've a better idea. Don't let people take nude photos of you.

Of course they did (-1, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#47084839)

If the victim was male, then they still would've found some twisted way to blame him. After all, she's always the victim and he can never be. (sarcasm)

Reverse Gear (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 5 months ago | (#47084843)

The only answer is to post the pics all over the net and that way you can view them anytime you like or send copies to her family and new boyfriends. After all you can't give back copies already distributed.

Oil Paintings (2)

Zan Lynx (87672) | about 5 months ago | (#47084925)

What about oil paintings? Didn't a lot of the Old Masters paint nudes? I bet some of them broke up with the subjects of the painting too.

Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47084993)

The retards of the modern world.

All right then... (1)

TheCreeep (794716) | about 4 months ago | (#47085007)

I'll stop compromising any more photos after a breakup.

German courts require break-up documentation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085057)

Who determines who is "together" & who is "broken-up".
Let's hope the German bureaucracy can find a way to "register and legalize" relationships, and of course charge a "value-added tax".

This only apply to "amateurs", or works for hire? (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 5 months ago | (#47085105)

Could a porn star decide later on that they "revoke their consent" for their previous work, and demand that it all be destroyed/deleted/vanished under threat of legal penalties?

Well done, Germany! (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 5 months ago | (#47085121)

Now laws like this need to be adopted by every country in this world, for the benefit of anyone, male or female. Thes "revenge against my ex" sites should be shut down, sued into oblivion, and anyone found guilty of posting comprising photos of an ex-partner should also be found culpable for monetary damages.

This 'Brave New Internet World' of ours should not mean you have the right to post photos (or any bullying derogatory libalous commentary) of another human being without risk of being subject to criminal and monetary prosecution.

I personally find this internet trend of 'revenge porn' to be abhorrent to the sensibilities of anybody who has even a modicum of morality. This needs to be stopped now in order to protect the lives of innocent people who gave their trust to their one time mates. For anyone who takes advantage of someone's trust in this way, how do you face the person in your mirror every morning and like and respect that person?!?!?!

Look at all the hypocrites who don't want this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47085163)

Human beings are sluts. Exposing who's a slut hurts persons of public stature especially, so they lobby to get it outlawed. Pathetic...

Dear Abby (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 5 months ago | (#47085165)

I think it was Dear Abby (honest :} ) someone wrote asking about having compromising photos taken of them by their husband. The answer was to wear a mask.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?