In Germany your photos are not always yours

[ShawnM]

I disagree with this ruling. There is no connection to any criminal act. This ruling is a "pre-emptive" court order issued not to stop a crime or correct criminal behaviour, but to soothe someone's paranoia. Referencing "Minority Report" doesn't quite work here because the "pre-cogs" could see into the future. This court is ruling blindly in regard to the future.

The dilemma being discussed is important to me, though. I do have a moral (not a legal) dilemma very similar to the ex-couple in this case. I have intimate photographs of women I have dated or lived with in the past. These photographs were not of paid models or models with a signed release form, those aren't on topic.

I did not coerce or badger any of these women into sitting for these photographs. There was some hesitation occasionally, but I know they were all consensual. My dilemma; an ex-girlfriend asked me to destroy the negatives and prints. There is no release form. The contract was verbal, promises. I promised to keep them private. They could be shown to others but only with explicit permission. We both made this promise. Yes, she has/had nude photographs of me.

I haven't destroyed them. Promises are very important to me, but so are the memories these photographs represent. I keep telling myself the photographs will be destroyed, I just didn't say when. I kind of feel dirty about that.

I read the comment section the Guardian had for the article. According to them, I am a pathetic creep keeping the photos to wank over. Charming.

My ex-girlfriend has no legal claim to these photos (US). She wants them destroyed and I want to keep them. These photos are of a beautiful young woman whom I still love. She was an island of stability during a very turbulent time in my life and these photographs still have the power to distract me with that stability and her confidence and her love of life even 18 years after we parted. The idea of a court ordering the destruction of these photographs is abhorrent.

I have seen, first hand, the destructive power these kinds of photographs can have. This dilemma, both mine and the greater public's, is difficult. Should the rights if one be undercut to protect against the potential violation of someone else's rights if the consequences of that violation are great? In my case, I don't view the problem in terms of private property rights, these are my precious memories. I have so few photographs of her. With these photographs I can smell her perfume, listen to her tease me in French (I don't speak French) and feel the wrestling matches she earnestly fought to win.

I don't know. I thought I might share a different perspective. I may have had a point but I lost it. It must have been profound. I think the language used in the arguments for and against is too simplistic and demonising. From what I've read in the Guardian article and elsewhere, it sounds like the ex-girlfriend is using the current buzzwords to get her way in a situation she otherwise wouldn't get any traction with.

Breaking up sucks, you never get what you want and if you do, you find it wasn't what you really wanted after all.

 

[AgX]

The court in question should have read your story.
Thank you for sharing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with the court on this in the context of the decision. Privacy rights in Europe are supported; in the U.S. the same rights get trampled on.

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree with the court on this in the context of the decision. Privacy rights in Europe are supported; in the U.S. the same rights get trampled on.

Privacy of whom? Those are the photo takers property, who gives the court the right to come into my home, look at my private things, destroy, or otherwise make decisions about? That's a far cry from respecting privacy.

Especially preemptive action, if I own a gun in my house, should I be arrested for murder or have my gun taken away from me simply because I own it that I might have the intention of using it on someone someday? I don't think that's the respect of privacy or logical, especially if I have no history of taking such action, no record to speak of of any crimes committed.

 

[MattKing]

Privacy of whom? Those are the photo takers property, who gives the court the right to come into my home, look at my private things, destroy, or otherwise make decisions about? That's a far cry from respecting privacy.

Especially preemptive action, if I own a gun in my house, should I be arrested for murder or have my gun taken away from me simply because I own it that I might have the intention of using it on someone someday? I don't think that's the respect of privacy or logical, especially if I have no history of taking such action, no record to speak of of any crimes committed.

Stone:

A gun ownership analogy is just about the "least likely to be successful in large parts of the world" argument you could use.

The photographs in question involve (the photographer's) private property, and (the subject's) personal privacy, so you have competing values to reconcile.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

A gun ownership analogy is just about the "least likely to be successful in large parts of the world" argument you could use.

The photographs in question involve (the photographer's) private property, and (the subject's) personal privacy, so you have competing values to reconcile.

If the subject truly cared about her privacy she wouldn't have dragged her images into court for all the Jury Members and lawyers and such to see. And if she cared about her privacy she wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place. I know this is harsh but truly, it's as obvious as, it you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex till you are sure you want a kid. You KNOW at the time of picture taking (or sex) that there is the POTENTIAL that since the images now exist (or sex happening even with protection) that the images MAY be seen, and MAY BE HELD by the taker of photographs (may be impregnated) then by doing the action, whatever it is, you are risking the consequences... Plain and simple, she regrets an action she took in the past, that was her own doing, and now doesn't want to take responsibility for the action and responsibility for the consequences or potential consequences of the action. No matter what the feelings in the moment, she is not stupid, she knows that the relationship might end and the photos might be exposed, and took the risk and now wants to take it back, life doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. Plain and simple. If I rob a store, and then years later say "I wish I didn't do that" do I get to be free of the consequences of that action? I could use a hundred analogies, take responsibility for your own irresponsible actions and stop playing the victim...

Sorry the gun analogy wasn't very good for others in the world, you're right.

 

[ShawnM]

Another point to consider, the plaintiff did not request destruction or deletion of nude or intimate pictures, she demanded ALL images of her be destroyed and had to be satisfied with the destruction of only the intimate pictures. This detail doesn't change the meaning of the courts precedence but it would indicate there's far more to the story we're not hearing. These sensational headlines seem to be using this case to further careers and as a vehicle to keep the issues of privacy and revenge porn in public debate. These headlines, and this case seem to have abandoned the formerly romantic couple and their parting problems.

I still believe the pre-emptive ruling against the photographer and the order to destroy the photographs amount to a conviction without a crime.

 

[StoneNYC]

Another point to consider, the plaintiff did not request destruction or deletion of nude or intimate pictures, she demanded ALL images of her be destroyed and had to be satisfied with the destruction of only the intimate pictures. This detail doesn't change the meaning of the courts precedence but it would indicate there's far more to the story we're not hearing. These sensational headlines seem to be using this case to further careers and as a vehicle to keep the issues of privacy and revenge porn in public debate. These headlines, and this case seem to have abandoned the formerly romantic couple and their parting problems.

I still believe the pre-emptive ruling against the photographer and the order to destroy the photographs amount to a conviction without a crime.

Thanks for pointing out the fact about asking for all of her photos deleted, that's a huge important point.

A good lawyer would argue that if the defendant were forced to delete all images of the plaintiff that the plaintiff would need to apply this court action to all previous relationships as well

 

[AgX]

That case has made it to two courts so far. It is not closed yet.

Both parties rejected the first decision: he refuses to delete anything, she urges deletion of all images of her images (not only the intimate ones).

The court of appeal confirmed completey the first decision: deletion of intimate images.

It is about still and moving images.

The man is commercial photographer.

The woman even made some of the intimate images herself and handed them to her friend.

The wording of the court indicates that the man already had shown intimate images of her to a third person.


The court takes the view that her approval of intimate images to be made was restricted to the duration of the relationship.

This approval even can be withdrawn as the privacy of her weighs heigher than his right of ownership.

Aside of intimate images, the court stated that it is common use that images taken in private situations are owned by the one who took them and can be used by him. ( Common use still may be in contrast to german law. [Agx]).



Thus

-) the court saw two different causes for the non-existance of approval: her restriction in first case, and her principal right to withdraw such approval.

-) only weighed his right of posession, not sentimental aspects (as Shawn hinted at in his similar situation).

 

[hugopoon]

So: Someone does something she later regrets, then goes crying to her parents expecting them to make everything okay with no consequences for her. And they do!

In a word (expressed with as much scorn as one can manage without spitting everywhere): Pathetic.

 

[StoneNYC]

So: Someone does something she later regrets, then goes crying to her parents expecting them to make everything okay with no consequences for her. And they do!

In a word (expressed with as much scorn as one can manage without spitting everywhere): Pathetic.

+1

 

[Wayne]

Or: Party A does something while in an intimate relationship, and childishly expects party B to always feel the same way about it even if Party A turns out to be a complete dickhead.

 

[MattKing]

If:
a) they were married; or
b) they were in a "marriage-like relationship" that meets certain criteria; and
c) if the law that applies here applies where they are; and
d) they had become separated; then

the photographs would be deemed to be owned by both of them as tenants in common.

So this fight would be between co-owners.

Adds an interesting wrinkle, doesn't it?

 

[AgX]

The case would even be more complicated as the ownership would not be clear.
But the basic idea of the court (privacy rights before ownership rights) would not be tangled.

 

[removed account4]

if they were a couple they would have been a partnership of sorts
and "worked together" to make these images, she would not only have been
a willing participant but joint owner. it isn't just a case of who
currently has possession of the negatives/files/prints.

 

[AgX]

They were joined owner during their partnership, but after splitting ownership of a good should be at one person.
But as I indicated that should not change the outcome even if he would have got ownership.

 

[AgX]

To me the actual problem in this case is the preemptive order of the court.
(In case the man did not publish any photo of her before.)

As I hinted at before in Germany this not the first time there is a preemptive order related to photography and possible publication.

In Germany there is just a discussion starting to prohibit citizens from leaving the country for preemptive reasons.


Preemptive oders are a great intrusion on ones freedom, and there may be the chance that by frequently employing such on rather banal cases the idea of preemptive order becomes grounded.