SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-they-will-always-be-in-his-brain dept.
Sometimes porn doesn't get the chance to become revenge porn, as in this case before the German Federal Court:
Germany's highest court has ordered a man to destroy intimate photos and videos of his ex-partner because they violate her right to privacy. The Federal Court said the man, a photographer, should no longer possess naked photos and sex tapes, even if he had no intention of sharing them.
The woman had originally agreed to the images but this consent stopped when the relationship ended, the court said. Germany has some of the strictest privacy laws in Europe.
The Federal Court was called upon to rule in a dispute between a former couple, who were arguing over whether or not the man should delete intimate photos and videos. In its ruling (in German), the court said everyone had the right to decide whether to grant insight into their sex life - including to whom they grant permission and in what form. It said that by retaining the images, the photographer had a certain "manipulative power" over his ex-lover. He should no longer have rights to the photos and videos once the relationship had ended, it concluded.
It is not clear how the ruling will be enforced.
A 2014 Pew survey of American mobile phone users found that 34% of those aged 25-34 reported receiving "sexts" (sexually suggestive photos or videos), as well as 22% of those aged 35-44 and 15% of those aged 45-54. Across all age groups, 20% reported receiving sexts, an increase from just 15% in 2012. A smaller portion of the population is sending the sexts: 9% of phone users in 2014, from 6% in 2012.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:30AM
Following your made up story,,,,,
So you finally decide to dump the bitch, and get back at the guy who banged her.
He was ordered to destroy them, and he did so in front of his lawyer, yet there they are, all over the internet.
Gee, how did they get there?
Photographer goes to jail, she goes to divorce court (again), and the guy she's dating behind your back runs away like his hair is on fire.
But lo, the photographer appeals, because it wasn't him who published the pictures.
They are in the wild. Not all under his exclusive control.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:53AM
Yes, thee photographer fucked up and might get in trouble if the marriage breaks after all and the husband turns out to be an asshole. Well, bad luck, probably the photographer shoudn't have sent the picture in the first place.
But as I said, not all pictures are in the wild, only those he sent already. If only those make it to the public one day, the photographer might persuade the courts he didn't do it. Nevertheless he can not just "Lose" his mobile or his USB stick anymore to accidentally publish the rest of the images and videos which are not yet in the wild.
The law-system does not claim to achieve 100% justice, its a system of best effort. I couldn't imagine a better ruling in this case. Allowing the photographer to keep the pictures wouldn't improve the situation.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum