Court demands foto deletion of his ex ...

... but only the nudie ones:
Court explanation (in German)
And here something in English:
http://www.thelocal.de …ers-to-delete-sexy-photos

Bottom line: The fotog only has to delete the nudie pictures of his ex - but not the dressed ones. Main point is that the potential reputation damage that could happen to the woman outweighs the owners right to the pictures.


And for full disclosure: I've taken the story off Slashdot but think this might be interesting for POTN.

Reasonable and agreeable in my view if the photos were taken as a 'private and personal nature', and under the (implied) agreement that no one but the couple involved would ever see them. Photos taken for the purpose of eventual distribution however should not be affected.

And of course there is no real way to prove that the photos were deleted, but exceptionally stiff penalties should be applied if they ever surface and can be traced back to the ex in question.

I'm curious if the outcome would be the same in the US.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16929099
I'm curious if the outcome would be the same in the US.

Maybe not the deletion part, but there are now laws in some states against 'revenge porn' where you post compromising pictures of someone that had once had a private relationship with you online and took the pictures with the expectation they would remain private.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16929099
I'm curious if the outcome would be the same in the US.

I would guess (and hope) no....the owner of the images should have full rights to keep them although the lack of a release would limit their use. IMO, it would be an awful (and sad) road to go down to allow the government to dictate to us what photos the owners of those photos are allowed to keep.

jra wrote in post #16930455
I would guess (and hope) no....the owner of the images should have full rights to keep them although the lack of a release would limit their use. IMO, it would be an awful (and sad) road to go down to allow the government to dictate to us what photos the owners of those photos are allowed to keep.

The Let's not make this an evil big government issue. It is the subject of the photograph that is requesting their destruction because the images have the potential to cause harm to the subject. The question is does the photographer's right to ownership outweigh the potential harm to the subject. I think the judge reached a reasonable decision.

Yes, the creation and existence of such personal and private material was based on an implied agreement between two parties. When that basis no longer exists then the reason for the photos to exists goes away as well.

This of course is assuming the request is to have photos that were only ever intended for their private collection destroyed, rather than photos that were created where both parties had agreed or acknowledged that the photos were not solely for private usage of a lover.