A bit off topic now, about photos of people without their consent like in street photo or even models who may claim they didn't know how the photo would be used I found this interisting in the text. This is a plug-in translation so it is not perfect clear. It seems to be allowed to sell photos of people as art. I am not sure if I got it wrong:

§ 22 KunstUrhG provides:

"Images may be publicly displayed disseminated only with the consent of the person portrayed or. The consent is in doubt as granted if the person portrayed that he allowed himself to reflect, received a reward. After the death of the person depicted is required to expiration of ten years, the consent of the relatives of the person portrayed. Members under this Act, the surviving spouse or domestic partner and children of the person depicted, and if neither a spouse or life partner children are still present, the parents of the person portrayed. "


§ 23 KunstUrhG counts exceptions:

(1) Without the consent required by § 22 may be distributed and showcased:
Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
Pictures where the people only as accessory appear next to a landscape or other location;
Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the people depicted have participated;
Images that are not made to order, unless the distribution or ostentation serves a higher interest of art.

(2) The authority does not extend to spread and ostentation, through a legitimate interest of the person portrayed or, if he has died, his family is hurt.
Does it means that if it is considered work of art it is ok to publish or even sell? Or I got it wrong?

PS: No, I don't plan to sell or publish street photographs. I just got curious.