German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other

from the no-takebacks dept

The aspect of the whole "right to be forgotten" business that's been occurring in Europe that most interests me isn't the legal wranglings or the plethora of unforeseen consequences that will inevitably rear its ugly head. Rather, I'm chiefly interested in the mentality that wanting such legislation suggests. That mentality appears to essentially amount to a request that chosen-actions that might end up being embarrassing should be subject to the whims of he or she that might be embarrassed. While this strikes me as immensely silly, it's not difficult to understand that the unprecedentedly long memory of the internet, as well as its inherent function as an easily-searched index, has made the consequences for embarrassing actions occur on a longer timeline than ever before. Pushing back against that change in the action-response scenario was probably inevitable, even if it's still wrong.

But it isn't just the internet that creates these kinds of scenarios. Digital photography presents a similar problem, with embarrassing images easily stored in perpetuity on hard drives and free from the wear and tear that old developed photos had to endure. And that's how we end up with a German court ruling that ex-lovers who had consented to being photographed nude and/or engaged in sexual activity must be deleted once the relationship ends.

The man, an unnamed photographer, had taken explicit photographs of his partner and made erotic videos with her throughout their relationship. The court heard the woman had consented to all of the material being taken and, in some cases, had taken the photographs herself. When their relationship ended, the woman insisted that all of the images and videos she appeared in be deleted.

The court agreed that any privately recorded nude pictures and footage which she appeared in should be deleted or withdrawn on the grounds of personal rights, which are considered higher than the ownership rights of the photographer, the Local has reported.
Let's wade around the legal weeds of German rights for a moment and break this down in laymen's terms. The court has ruled that actions previously agreed to are subject to the wants of that actor once a romantic relationship ends simply because they might embarrass said actor. One might have sympathy with the woman in this specific case, who didn't want her ex-lover to retain nude photos or videos of her in suggestive situations with him. But negating the responsibility for decisions made is going to open up a whole can of worms the court has no business involving itself in. In this case, they ruled that photos of the woman fully-clothed weren't subject to deletion, because they wouldn't "compromise" her. Great, except now define "fully-clothed", explain why the woman's feelings that her in a low-cut t-shirt isn't fully clothed, what ability the court has demonstrated to be a good arbiter of other people's feelings of being compromised, etc.

The point is that when the courts get involved in attempting to protect people from their own feelings, it's going to go wrong. Each and every time. Because the court shouldn't be in this kind of subjective debate. On top of that, alleviating citizens from the consequences of actions they consented to isn't the court's business either. Yes, it's possible that the man may use the photos in questionable ways, but let the court deal with those offenses rather than the vague possibility of an offense. This court instead said the ex had to delete the photos that are his to possess, simply because. Have fun with the resulting caseload, Germany.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 11:43am

    Copyright implications are staggering

    A photographer has the copyright in the picture he takes. Having a model's release (verbal or written) even more strengthens any doubts nor claims against that.

    What this German ruling suggests is that ex-post-facto a "model" may withdraw all rights, and the photographer may no longer DISTRIBUTE, SELL, OR EVEN POSSESS said material.

    That's an about face not only on copyright law, but contract law.

    I can't see this being sustainable in the US no matter how whacky (Garcia v Google) we are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Historyonics, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:27pm

    So does this mean that a family can revoke permission and require for them to be destroyed to protect a reputation? How about descendants embarrassed by it? I can see a lot of art being destroyed in the name of this idiocy. Where does it end? Do we next get to hear of her deciding she wished she never had sex him and revokes her consent to that now so all those times were rape? Yes that is a ridiculous assumption or parallel, but this decision is equally ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:38pm

    Re: This is embarassing

    No. Since the court is embarrassing you, according to their premise, they should be ordered to delete themselves. Once the court has been removed, a court can be put in place to take over their duties and hopefully this time one that will not be so embarrassing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    Do we next get to hear of her deciding she wished she never had sex him and revokes her consent to that now so all those times were rape?


    I've seen people attempt this more times than I can count. Good friend of mine had to lawyer up when a crazy ex-girlfriend withdrew consent ex-post-facto and started accusing him of rape... and all the internet SJWs jumped on the case and took her side, too, to make life a living hell for him. You do NOT want to open that floodgate by establishing a legal precedent. There are thousands of crazy exes just waiting for the day they can send their former lovers to jail on rape charges for breaking up with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:43pm

    "Let's wade around the legal weeds of German rights for a moment and break this down in laymen's terms."

    Let's put it even more simply. The court ruled that they can order you to burn photographs you've taken and owned for years, simply because someone in the photo has decided that how they look in the photo is embarrassing. The sole limitation on this is that they first have to get the court to agree that they look embarrassing in it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:45pm

    Silly motherfuckers, they better then make sure to disappear shitty copyright tenures then. Eating their cake, then trying to deny they ate it.
    The world is a becoming a more dangerous place, because of
    those who look on and do nothing. Your government brings up some shitty laws, you better rise up and beat them over their heads so they remember who their masters really are.
    WTF, reading so much stuff on here and elsewhere just gets frigging depressing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:45pm

    How is that remotely enforceable?

    Nobody can know for sure if I've deleted anything whatsoever, after all. Now, if the ruling had been against distributing the pictures, I'd take it more seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:51pm

    So basically the 'right to be forgotten' can override copyright, stripping someone of their copyright on something if the person depicted thinks it will 'embarrass' them, even if they gave full consent at the time the photo/video was taken.

    The new law is barely out the gate and it's already turning into a giant mess, legal and otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:52pm

    "Your government" and "you better rise up"

    Really?

    Did you rise up when YOUR government recorded all your phone calls and emails and violated your civil rights?

    Did you rise up when YOUR government "brings up shitty laws"?

    Because until you're Edward Snowden or Chris Dorner or whomever, you're not "Anonymous Coward" but "HYPOCRITICAL COWARD."

    All the best.

    E

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Do you know how you handle that? Ok fine. If she withdraws her consent, then so does he. Then the judge can issue an order stating that since neither one consented, they both can be charged with raping each other, unless of course they want to rethink that legal strategy and work out some sort of agreement between the two of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:58pm

    Movies

    There are many movies in which an actor or actress appears naked - can he/she now withdraw consent and demand that all copies of the movie be deleted?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 12:58pm

    Porn industry next

    It's just a matter of time before the porn industry in Germany will be forced to "disappear" porn where the actor/actress has decided later that they no longer want to be seen in it.

    Then it will move on to being seen in movies (naked or not), then to all media, news, journalism, etc., including even the mention of their name...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:23pm

    i wonder how long it will be before some convicted pedophile gets info removed, gets a new job at an infants school or similar and interferes with the kids? i then wonder who is going to take the rap for this ridiculous law, that those who are supposed to be some of the top legal minds in the world have ruled it legal, when shit truly hits fan? you can bet your life it wont be them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Free Me From The Machines, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:30pm

    Before the internet there was hope that if you did something stupid, you could move, start over wiser, and have a productive life. Now we're to have something stupid we did at 18 thrown repeatedly in our faces until we're 81?

    What branch of hell are we living in?

    Must we commit suicide at 19 because our life is ruined forever?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:37pm

    unintended consequences

    He cannot prove that he has deleted the photos, but if he is caught in possession of them later I presume he'll be in hot water.

    On the other hand, if somebody submits them anonymously to a few sites where such pictures are shared (outside this court's jurisdiction), then he can look at them whenever he likes while keeping his hard drive 100% clean.

    I doubt the court meant to set up such incentives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    OldMugwump (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Must we commit suicide at 19 because our life is ruined forever?

    Life is not ruined forever just because you were recorded doing something stupid when you were young.

    Data is not going to just *dissapear* no matter what courts rule.

    We have to get used to the idea that we're imperfect beings who do stupid things sometimes. So is everyone else.

    That doesn't mean life is ruined. It just means we all need to be a little more tolerant. Especially with ourselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:41pm

    Re: unintended consequences

    No it will just order Google to "delete" them, because... you know... they can... and... that works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Spaceman Spiff, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:56pm

    Re: So now...

    the "court" is a voyeur? Can we have them arrested, sentenced, and put in prison? :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:59pm

    Re:

    "Now we're to have something stupid we did at 18 thrown repeatedly in our faces until we're 81?"

    Nope. In the vast majority of cases, nobody will ever care about the stupid things you did when you were young -- because almost everybody did stupid things when they were young.

    If anything, the internet will make people care even less. I could even see people becoming suspicious if they can't find anything indicating youthful indiscretions -- especially if this stupid "right to be forgotten" thing catches on: the lack of such stuff would be an indication that your history was scrubbed, which would be an indication that whatever was there must have been much worse than most other people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Didn't this already happen to Julian Assange?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Movies

    Some actress should do that to a major MPAA movie in Germany and watch the fireworks fly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 2:17pm

    So they actually believe in the phrase "pics or it didn't happen."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Tice with a J (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 2:41pm

    Re:

    We've finally found a force that stronger than copyright. Free speech wasn't, privacy wasn't, but this is. Behold the copyright killer: censorship!

    Figures. Freedom never seems to win in these matches.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 3:08pm

    Wait, what about love letters?

    I have a bunch of mushy love notes, in German no less. So should they be destroyed too? And if not, what's the difference?

    Luckily I don't live in Germany right now so this is hypothetical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 3:09pm

    Re: "Your government" and "you better rise up"

    My government isn't recording all my phone calls and e-mails.
    I'm not American.
    When my country did bring up shitty laws, yes I did stand up, and we changed it.
    Stop being an ass and assuming I'm American okay.
    There's a reason I'm being anonymous, and you just insulting me by calling me a hypocrite, does nothing constructive to my comment.

    Good morning to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Re: Must we commit suicide at 19 because our life is ruined forever?

    You're absolutely right about the "being tolerant" part. Now that I'm officially a geezer, I make snarky and condescending comments about quite a few things. But...that's just my crusty public persona. Deep down, I know that nearly EVERYONE did stupid, selfish, dangerous, illegal, boneheaded, careless, idiotic, callous &etc. things in their youth just like I did and well, it's okay to give them a do-over or three. (Some of those people were fortunate enough not to get hurt or arrested in the process. Some weren't. The latter should probably stop feeling smug about it, they weren't good, they were just lucky.)

    Now when this behavior persists into their 30's and 40's and 50's...or if it escalates into violence...or something like that...okay, then we have a problem. But otherwise: write it off. Otherwise in about 15 years, NOBODY is going to be employable or dateable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Must we commit suicide at 19 because our life is ruined forever?

    "Otherwise in about 15 years, NOBODY is going to be employable or dateable."

    If no one can meet the 'Standards' of 'Employable' or 'Dateable', Businesses won't simply go out of business and people won't just suddenly let themselves die out because they can't find their perfect match. What is more likely to happen is that the 'Standards' will change to meet the new Generation.

    It's as John Fenderson said, if we get to the point where EVERYONE does something stupid when they are young and it can be found on the internet, no one is going to care at all, it's just going to become an accepted norm of the generation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 5:04pm

    Re:

    Just stick your middle finger to the world, to the world, to the world, and let it rock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 5:06pm

    Can you imagine the hairy armpits and legs on that chick? Ewwwww...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 5:37pm

    Re:

    Huh, that's the second time I've seen this sort or comment on this article, with nary a whiff of interest over the problematic nature and unintended consequences of automatic copyright.

    Then again, the thread already turned to copyright in work for hire and claiming women like to get men arrested for rape because a relationship ended, so, whatevs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 5:42pm

    Re:

    I can certainly imagine not wanting to have a mind like yours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 6:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, because like Bill Cosby used to say, if you're not careful you may learn something before it's done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Case, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 6:41pm

    Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    The ruling was neither on copyright nor on contracts, but on nude pics taken for purposes of private amusement. There is no post-factum retraction of consent to something, since taking nudies for private fappery of one's SO is made with the obvious expectation that they will remain private (which the photographer also never contested)

    A model's release is a completely different ball park, and wholly unaffected by that ruling.


    And seriously techdirt, you think retaining the most intimate data on someone is not a problem, does not create chilling effects, and in the "vague possibility of an offense" courts can simply put the genie back in the bottle? Did the NSA take over here, or was it just that your blood went...elsewhere when reading about that case?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 7:06pm

    Re: How is that remotely enforceable?

    This was my first thought...how are you going to enforce this? Check everyone's hard drives every time they break up with someone? I can think of about five different ways off the top of my head to make it look like I've deleted files I haven't.

    In my opinion, if you consented to having naked pictures taken, for "fun" or whatever, you have to live with the consequences. It's a risk you took, like having unprotected sex, then killing the child because you don't like the result.

    Oh, wait. We do that. Oops, did I just tweak a nerve?

    * Tiptoes off the stage...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 1:55am

    Re: Porn industry next

    That would be terrible. I really like some German porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 1:58am

    Re:

    And it appears their standard for hearing an individual's case amounts to 'tits or gtfo.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 2:10am

    Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    So the ruling isn't about contracts you say, and will cause no chilling effects whatsoever for contract law in Germany?

    BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Do you even know what a contract is both historical and by precedent ? Do you know the elements to a contract? Do you understand even the basic concept of a promissory situation and the ramifications that this actually sets in motion for ANYTHING whether it is private or commercial, and this is before we even go into how this affects the doctrine of estoppel which is a HUGE one.

    Oh and whether they are nude pics or whatever is absolutely irrelevant to the precedent this idiotic court has now set.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 2:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    And just so you don't say "but Germany is a civil law and not a common law forum" in regards to estoppel I am also talking about the principle of venire contra factum proprium non valet.

    For those not versed in latin ;) it roughly translates to
    'no one is allowed to go against the consequences of their own action(s)'

    So the German court has wiped that principle out as well.. charming!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 4:32am

    Gotta love this: German legal definition of"Ex-Lover" established by judges, not Bundestag. It will take a few years to settle this, but it will spill and will end up in SCOTUS one day. Can't wait.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    The Wanderer (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 4:52am

    Re: Porn industry next

    I suspect that the argument will be that the contract / release the performers sign before appearing in the porn is sufficient for the grant of permission to be legally binding and irrevocable, whereas the implicit or verbal consent provided by the participants in the individual relationship is not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Case, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Hate to break it to you, but Germany is not a libertarian seasteading project (and neither is any other place), therefore interactions between individuals in their bedrooms are not a matter of contract law.

    Now go row your boat out somewhere and complain about the fouling violating NAP :(


    PS: And the fact that they are nude pics is very relevant, given the high emphasis German law places on human dignity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Who said anything about the consideration element being about sex? hmmmm

    And I hate to break it to you but in this regards and because this ruling is a huge outlier over anything any other civil law or common law jurisdiction has or ever will rule in this way on; Germany IS the seasteading state here.

    As for human dignity? *snorts* I'm sorry.. dignity requires equity for both parties. In this ruling the person who agreed and now post action has taken back there agreement and anywhere else would be estopped from doing so has totally wiped out the equitable nature of the whole thing.

    So basically Germany is only concerned with human dignity when it falls within their extreme moralistic, untenable and unequitable standards that no reasonable human (& that includes the UNHR's here too) would ever agree to.

    Seems Germany is going down a very slippery slope again without even realising it (though thankfully not pure Fascism this time)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Case, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Well, if this is such a huge outlier you can certainly provide plenty of cases and legal comment detailing that German law considers retaining personal information (in the very general sense) as wholly unproblematic unless actual abuse occurs. Such as the resounding confirmation of IP/telephone data retention (Oops), the codified principle that personal information can be stored at will (double oops), a clear tendency of courts to allow video surveillance unless the tapes are published (you get the pattern)...


    As for human dignity? *snorts* I'm sorry.. dignity requires equity for both parties.

    Given that this emphasis was put into the GG to put a stop to gassing minorities, I'd kinda disagree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    The Wanderer (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Why would he need to provide cases in German law where such things have happened?

    He said:
    this ruling is a huge outlier over anything any other civil law or common law jurisdiction has or ever rule in this way on
    (Emphasis added.)

    I.e., Germany itself is the outlier. For other things in German law, or even the entirety of the rest of German law, to support this would not undermine that point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Marion Delgado, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 7:55am

    I think this is wrong on several levels

    It assumes knee-jerk "when the court gets involved with X" cyberlibertarian bullshit. It also quite dishonestly pretends the issue is having photos in your house or something. No, this is about making said photos publicly available and publicly searchable.

    Screw Google and their so-called rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    The Wanderer (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 8:12am

    Re: I think this is wrong on several levels

    What's your source for the claim that only making the explicit and/or naked photos publicly available and searchable would be prohibited under this ruling?

    All the stories I've found on this report that the ruling is that the photos must be deleted following the end of the relationship, if the other member of the relationship asks for it. Nothing about public availability is mentioned. Under that standard, yes, "[keep]ing [the] photos in your house" would indeed be prohibited.

    None of those stories have included a link to, non-vague summary of, or direct quotes from the original ruling, either, so it's possible that all of them are based on an invalid premise (possibly rooted in one original mistaken or maliciously inaccurate news article). I see no reason to assume that that is the case, however, and the principle underlying Occam's razor would seem to argue against doing so.

    (And of course, unless the ruling itself does specifically say something about public searchability, Google has nothing to do with this.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    There is no post-factum retraction of consent to something, since taking nudies for private fappery of one's SO is made with the obvious expectation that they will remain private (which the photographer also never contested)


    Yes, private to those two people. But now, after the fact, that is no longer good enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    A. Lauridsen, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 8:56am

    The op is just plain stupid

    The woman had at no point in time given the photographer permission to make the pictures public.

    The pictures were made for their shared personal enjoyment, and not public consumption.

    In this world where lots of boyfriends feel they have right to get "even" with the girlfriend, when she decides to leave him, it's no wonder she wanted them back.

    I would suggest that the OP leave his highly theoretical ideological horse, and start to move around in the real world. Where women on a daily basis suffer from boyfriends out for revenge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    A. Lauridsen, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    @G Thompson

    Do you even know the practical differences between roman law tradition and anglo-saxon law tradition?

    "venire contra factum proprium non valet", does not carry the weight you seem to assume.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 10:16am

    Re: The op is just plain stupid

    Where women on a daily basis suffer from boyfriends out for revenge.

    That is very sexist of you.

    We also live in a world where men suffer the same fates from vindictive women. Have you never heard the term "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 10:36am

    Re: Wait, what about love letters?

    I would think the German government would be very serious about destroying German love notes, after a bundle of them on a U-boat changed the course of WWII.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2014 @ 11:17am

    Copyright implications aren't staggering

    Actually, this is technically governed by contract law in Germany. Pretty much every agreement between multiple parties is a contract there, renumeration is irrelevant.

    The problem is that this is an implicit contract where the parties never actually worked out the details. Now they disagree what the terms actually were and the court has to decide who is right. Nothing new, unlikely or staggering here.

    There are no implications for copyright either. The photographer retains full copyrights, unter German law he cannot acually lose them or transfer them to anybody else anyway. It is now impossible for him to actually exercise those rights, but copyright never guaranteed that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

    Re: The op is just plain stupid

    "The woman had at no point in time given the photographer permission to make the pictures public."

    You should read the OP before calling it stupid. It isn't about making the pictures public. It's about requiring one of the parties involved to delete them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 6:13pm

    Re: The op is just plain stupid

    "The woman had at no point in time given the photographer permission to make the pictures public.

    The pictures were made for their shared personal enjoyment, and not public consumption."


    True, but completely irrelevant to this story, since nobody mentioned any intention to make the photos public.

    "In this world where lots of boyfriends feel they have right to get "even" with the girlfriend, when she decides to leave him, it's no wonder she wanted them back."

    No, not "lots of boyfriends", only a very small percentage of them, just like I'm sure a small percentage of girlfriends act in equally bad ways. Nothing in the story suggested this man was one of those few.

    "I would suggest that the OP leave his highly theoretical ideological horse, and start to move around in the real world. Where women on a daily basis suffer from boyfriends out for revenge."

    I would suggest you read articles thoroughly and engage the critical thinking part of your brain before commenting. I'd also suggest that if you really do personally encounter such acts of revenge on such a regular basis you might want to try meeting better people. I suspect though that you're more likely just a regular consumer of low-quality, sensationalist journalism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 9:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Why yes I do, which is why I differentiated between common law and civil law jurisdictions..

    Please read my comments in the order they appear that way context is retained and assumptions don't make you look like well.. you know the old saying about assuming.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 10:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    you know the old saying about assuming.

    It makes an ass out of u and ming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2014 @ 11:44pm

    Exactly... and I quite like Ming.. they even had a huge dynasty at one stage until some ass called Li came along :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    A. Lauridsen, Jun 5th, 2014 @ 2:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    @G Thompson

    I read both your posts, and they clearly leave the impression that you seem to think that the principles behind anglo-saxon contract law work similarly to roman law tradition.

    Your reference to estoppel, and your obvious belief of it's universal relevance is a clear indicator.

    Trying to rescue your argument, by turning to simple name-calling and cliechés rather than staying on topic speaks for it self.

    Please note the anonymous cowards post:
    "The problem is that this is an implicit contract where the parties never actually worked out the details. Now they disagree what the terms actually were and the court has to decide who is right. Nothing new, unlikely or staggering here."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    masquisieras, Jun 5th, 2014 @ 3:01am

    Re: Copyright implications are staggering

    Well I think that the German court is saying that the implicit release of the model in the nude pictures should be considered conditional to maintaining the relationship.
    Is not ex-post-facto the release was given under the condition of the relation, no relation the release is no longer valid.
    If a model give a release under the condition of a 10% of the profits of the photograph if the model do not get the money is still valid the release?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Kitiem, Jun 5th, 2014 @ 10:52am

    If this verdict had been handed down in a revenge porn case, the reactions would be a lot more positive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.