Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,775   Posts: 1,671,065   Online: 1062
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnM View Post
    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

  2. #32
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,026
    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    This approval even can be withdrawn as the privacy of her weighs heigher than his right of ownership.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).

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong/Paris
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    156
    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.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by xxloverxx View Post
    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

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,480
    Images
    3
    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.
    Nice work. You have a very talented computer.

  6. #36
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,028
    Images
    63
    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?
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #37
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,026
    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.

  8. #38
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18,103
    Blog Entries
    14
    Images
    71
    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.

  9. #39
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,026
    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.
    Last edited by AgX; 06-05-2014 at 06:40 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #40
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,026
    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.
    Last edited by AgX; 06-05-2014 at 06:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin