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 Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:52PM
What the ruling does, is ensure that if the guy is ever caught releasing those images go out onto the web, then the court has something to smack the guy down with, because that will be proof of disobeying the court's command.
Except how would you prove it?
So say, in a month from now, some nude pictures of photographer's ex-girlfriend show up online. The woman girlfriend claims that these are some of the photos that were supposed to be destroyed. The photographer insists that he did not take these pictures. The ones he took were different pictures that they have all been deleted. Who do you believe? Maybe they are the pictures, maybe the ex-girlfriend had some pictures taken and then uploaded to frame the photographer. You don't know. How do we know she hasn't had other ex-lovers that took other photos of her? I mean, unless they can somehow register all the current photos with the court, I guess. But then, isn't that what she is trying to avoid?
It's a stupid ruling, because it cannot be fairly enforced. In fact, this ruling gives the woman a certain "manipulative power" over the photographer. She can make demands of him now and insist if he doesn't comply, she will upload some revealing photos and take him to court again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:10PM
Also, what if she has copies of those pictures and decides to release them "anonymously" now, to frame her ex?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:47PM
The photographer insists that he did not take these pictures.
Then he goes down for perjury as well.
"How many people were in the room when you made your sex tape or took the posed nudie?"
Just the two of you? Bang. Guilty. Take him away.
If he can make a claim that the pictures were stolen, or the publishing was consensual, maybe he gets off.
But that seems risky unless he can prove they existed on line prior to the end of the relationship.
"But your honor, the two of us agreed at the time we would post the pictures on sluts.com.de. They were out there for years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:49PM
Then he goes down for perjury as well.
This is a perfect example of why the phrase "jury of your peers" terrifies me.
So your logic is that if any nude photo of the woman ends up online then it's 100% the photographer's fault? Even if he never took the photo? How do you know that the new (theoretical) photo was on the the previous ones that were taken? It certainly isn't impossible to create more. You refuse to accept the possibility (however small) that someone else could have created it? What if the photo in question doesn't even show an identifiable person? Like what if you can't see a face? What if the woman claims it's her? You might not be able to say 100% for sure if it is. You'd pretty much have to take her word for it.
But nope, you are 100% sure it must be the photographer. No matter what.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:40AM
Its Germany, so I can't say for certain.
Here, the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
The standard isn't "Beyond all possible doubt".
He doesn't deny taking the photos. So lets dispense with that bullshit point.
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
How old are you anyway? 12?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:18AM
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
Are you entirely sure of that statement? Tattoos, moles, scars, amputations, piercings, and other identifying marks are far more than enough to recognize someone.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:41AM
AC:
Are you entirely sure of that statement? Tattoos, moles, scars, amputations, piercings, ...
Please learn to follow a thread even if you're too lazy to sign in.
Did you miss the part where the GP said:
What if the photo in question doesn't even show an identifiable person?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday December 24 2015, @06:06PM
Here, the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
Yet you assume if any pic is released, it's automatically his fault. That's not reasonable at all.
He doesn't deny taking the photos. So lets dispense with that bullshit point.
I never claimed he denied taking the photos. I'm saying he's in an unfair position now. If photos were to surface, people like you would automatically assume it was him, no matter what. Even if it wasn't.
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
Fair enough. But it's not clear. What if one of the photos he took *is* of her, and he does release it, but you can't prove it's her in the picture? See? There's a huge problem with enforcing this ruling. It's could literally turn into a "he said, she said" situation.
How old are you anyway? 12?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday December 24 2015, @09:20AM
Well, one would hope that the new court case would require some kind of evidence that the files were uploaded by the man, and not by the woman. In case of doubt, err on the side of innocence. That's how the law is supposed to work. Of course, proving where an online image originated can be... problematic. IP addresses and online accounts can give an indication but are rarely conclusive, if the perpetrator takes some simple measures to hide themselves and challenge the evidence presented in court. However the internet is full of people stupid enough to post self-incriminating shit online an make no attempt whatsoever to cover their tracks.