Birgit Springl. German clammette hitting me with 100, 000 Euro law suit for showing her photo(?)

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by CarltonBANKS, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. jensting Member

    Sounds like she's going for copyright (sorry, my Germen is not up to a more formal translation). Not sure the owner of scientology-london would have a leg to stand on legally. Not sure 100000 euros damage would be appropriate :)

    Privacy might also be what she's after, although I don't know how carefully she guarded these photos before.

    Given that critics have vaunted their ability to get photos off various clam hate sites for copyright reasons, I think a consistent standpoint would be to wag a finger in the direction of the owner of scientology-london. Tsk-tsk!

    Best Regards

  2. Smurf Member

    She would have to prove she owns the photos to claim copyright. The only one that can do that is the photographer that took the photos, unless said photog sign a waiver providing her rights to the images. For privacy purposes, she would have to show how her photos, now in the public domain, are damaging to her.
  3. CarltonBANKS Member

    My place? That would be Sweden.

    Copyright schompy-right

    Photos and docs were submitted by ebaums world. Those rascals!

    You know that dianetics is copyright and still that is still hosted.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Krautfag Member

    Only applies to commercial photography. Basically over here you own all rights to your own image and your own voice right away

    Right to your own image

    as a Fundamental Right, unless you sign them away for a particular photo (at which point copyright regulations apply) and/or particular publication or you are a person of public interest, e.g. someone filmed while committing a crime, a celebrity, a politician etc.).
    Under German law she as a private person is absolutely entitled to have her picture removed from unwanted publication, or at least have it pixeled. However, the site in question is subject to Her Majesty's Court and the Brits are usually far more allowing in that direction.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Under UK law, a model release is needed for commercial use of photos (e.g. advertising) in which individuals are identifiable.

    But it's not needed for news reporting.

    Nor is it usually needed for non-commercial use.

  6. Anonymous Member

  7. Anonymous Member

    Those rascals!
  8. CarltonBANKS Member

    Swedish law. English courts have zero jurisdiction.


  10. Krautfag Member

    Dang, bummer.
    I should have read moar :/

    jag är ledsen, nordisk bro
  11. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Being that you are from that area, would it be ok to have her picture on the net if she were a modern Nazi? She wants to publicly promote Scientology causes like Anti Psych stuff but expects to not be exposed for it?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    In Germany, human rights are the same for every member of Homo sapiens sapiens. 2-5 years ago there was a discussion if criminals shouldn't be tortured "a little bit", if another (heavy - but who defines?) crime could be prevented by this. No f* way - though people wouldn't care if laws would change, I'm afraid.

    If she promotes $ci - fine. $ci is just under observation, not forbidden. Showing Nazi symbols is forbidden, even striked out ones were, for a long time.
  13. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Your missing the point. The Nazi part could have been anything. The point is if she can promote something you should be able to expose her lies. Why don't you send her a letter telling her she does not have a right to attack the Psychs? Psychiatry by your logic is not illegal in Germany but it does not keep her from slandering it or people in it.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Ackerland Member

    It very much depends on where the photo has been taken, and who did it.

    If the photos show her distributing cchr flyers in public, or her taking part in a protest, she can not legally prevent the publishing of her pictures, because at that time she is in the public interest, and by representing a cause she must accept her picture is published.

    However, if the pictures show her in a private setting, where she has reasonable expectations of privacy, even taking pictures secretly is a crime.

    These pictures she uploaded herself are a grey area. they were taken on the street, but not by the one who uploaded them. so copy right law might be more appropriate, but here im not sure, since ianal
  15. Anonymous Member

    Because she is allowed to.
    She only gets a problem if she attacks a certain psych (and she/he sues her for damaging business / reputation). I'm not sure how Psychs could act as group, but still she has the right to express her opinion.

    And my point was, even if a person does something illegal, you can't negate her rights. Isn't this one of the basics of common democracy? Laws are the same for everbody? Isn't that the whole trick with the Guantanamo thingy? Like children saying "It was not me, it was my hand!" ?
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Xenu Is Lord Member

    You are absurd. It is not against the law even in Germany to put someones picture up on the net and telling people either your (Opinion) about them or factual things. Common decency is something she has violated for years and now it is catching up with her. The law? Exactly what law was broken, read me the code?
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Copyright is only relevant under commercial value. The redistribution of photos that she put on the world wide web for educational, information, news or satirical reasons is covered under Fair Use and the last time I checked Germany was a subscriber to the Fair Use Doctrine. This lawsuit is not going any place except to Luz factory!
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Ackerland Member

    It is only legal in special circumstances, namely if she is a person of prominence, like spokesperson of an organisation, or a movie star, a politician or something like it. Given that these pictures do not show her in any official function, I doubt displaying these pictures on the page would fly with German law.
  19. telomere Member

    You are a member of the Bar in Germany too?
  20. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Exactly what German law are you making reference too. Germany does have a (personality rights) law but it only applies to commercial use of images. At this point I have to ask you to Dox what you are saying. As far as i can see, she has no case.
  21. Xenu Is Lord Member

    No nor do I need to be. You are making wild accusations about what the law is. I don't need to be a part of the German Bar to read the laws on the books. Any country you go to has a criminal and civil code and I am waiting for your expert analysis of the (??? code)) your are making reference too.
  22. Xenu Is Lord Member

    These are the laws I have found. The more I read on them the more convinced I am this is a non issue.

    In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing.[54] The relevant offences of Germany's Criminal Code are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), , §192 ("insult" with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are §190 (Criminal conviction as proof of truth), §193 (No defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized[by whom?] for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.
  23. Xenu Is Lord Member

    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anon'R'us Member

    The german law in question ist the "Kunsturheberrechtsgesetz, kurz: KunstUrhG" (roughly translated as "Art-Copyright-Law")
    The concerned paragraphs are § 22, § 23, § 24 and § 33 KunstUrhG:

    § 22 (
    Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden. Die Einwilligung gilt im Zweifel als erteilt, wenn der Abgebildete dafür, daß er sich abbilden ließ, eine Entlohnung erhielt. Nach dem Tode des Abgebildeten bedarf es bis zum Ablaufe von 10 Jahren der Einwilligung der Angehörigen des Abgebildeten. Angehörige im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind der überlebende Ehegatte oder Lebenspartner und die Kinder des Abgebildeten und, wenn weder ein Ehegatte oder Lebenspartner noch Kinder vorhanden sind, die Eltern des Abgebildeten.

    § 23 (

    (1) Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden:
    1. Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte;
    2. Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen;
    3. Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben;
    4. Bildnisse, die nicht auf Bestellung angefertigt sind, sofern die Verbreitung oder Schaustellung einem höheren Interesse der Kunst dient.
    (2) Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird.
    §24 (
    Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.
    § 33 (

    (1) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer entgegen den §§ 22, 23 ein Bildnis verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau stellt.
    (2) Die Tat wird nur auf Antrag verfolgt.
    I'll try to give you a translation in a minute.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Were the photos she put on the net, now Art? Again, this has to do with money. The slander laws in Germany require proof of intent to harm with knowingly false statements and then one must prove actual harm that a reasonable person would agree was slanderous.
  26. Smurf Member

    It's correct that British law would apply because Carlton's site is registered in the UK, but she is not a Brit, and therefore, German law does not apply. If she, indeed, is on welfare, where is she going to come up with the $$ to hire an attorney that deals in international law?

    The best she can do is complain to the ISP where Carlton's site is registered and demand they remove it, and Carlton can challenge it. It's not like he covertly attained her photos.

    Like I said before, I'd ignore the bitch until Carlton actually got a letter from her attorney.
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Xenu Is Lord Member

    According to some folks here German citizens are now off limits. You could get sued by them for saying things or posting pictures of them. Especially for words and photos they themselves are responsible for putting in to the public realm. Lesson DON'T PICK ON GERMAN CULT MEMBERS ANY MORE OR ELSE LOL

    Now that I am done being an ass about it. I would say if one was in England I would be more worried but the laws in Germany are more open on this type of topic.
  28. Xenu Is Lord Member

  29. Anon'R'us Member

    Okay, this is just my shot at translating the mentioned laws. I'm neither a professional translator nor a lawyer, so stay critical on the exact words.

    § 22 (the basics):
    Portraits are only to be published or spread with the consent of depicted person. The consent counts as given, if the depicted person has been compensated for beein depicted. After the death of the depicted person, the consent of his next of kin is necessary for a period of ten years. As next of kin in terms of this law are the surviving spouse or life partner and the children of the depicted person and, if neither spouse nor life partner nor children are existend, the parents of the depicted person.

    § 23 (the exeptions):
    (1) The following are allowed to be spread or published without the in §22 mentioned consent:
    1. Depictions of fields of contemporary history;
    2. Pictures, on which the person is only an accessory part to the landscape or other localities;
    3. Pictures of assemblies, demonstrations or similar events, in which the depicted person took part;
    4. Depictions, which weren't done on comission, so far as the spreading or publishing serves some higher intrests of art.
    (2) This authorisation doeas however not apply to a spreading or publishing, if they infringe on some legitimate interest of the depicted person or, if he is dead, his next of kin.

    § 24:
    For purposes of judicature and public savety, government agencies are allowed to duplicate, spread or publish depictions of a person without his permission or his next of kin.

    § 33:
    (1) With imprisonment up to one year monetary penalty is prosecuted, who contrary to § 22, 23 spreads or publishes a depiction.
    (2) The deed is only prosecuted upon petition.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anon'R'us Member

    Now I feel silly for forgetting about google translate. Woul have saved me quite some time.
  31. Smurf Member

    Drink more coffee. You are caffeine-deficient. You are clueless.. don't know what you're talking about... you're never right on legal issues (even if you were a janitor in a courthouse for 10 years).. give it up Xenu.. when it comes to legal issues, you suck!

  32. telomere Member

    Have I?

    My only accusation heretofore has been to question your credentials.
    And this I'm sticking by. until you sue me
  33. Smurf Member

    I thought Carlton's site was registered in the UK. My mistake.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. telomere Member

  35. Mutante Member

    damn that bitch is pig ugly
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Looking at yourself in the mirror, again?
  37. telomere Member

    • Like Like x 1
  38. Krautfag Member

    If we consider German law (which is completely pointless in this case), it's not relevant at all if the publication of the picture constitutes slander/libel or as it would be called here insult. You have the right to your image by default. So unless you agree to the publication or are a person of public interest, no one can legally put up your picture but yourself. Because you own all pictures taken of your body and recordings taken of your voice.

    You could get sued in Germany, yes. Not for saying things about them but posting their private pictures without consent. Note, PRIVATE pictures. If the scilons operate a stress test table they are not in their private capacity anymore but adressing the public, and can thus be photographed and the photos can be published.

    The point where you really are mistaken is your view of the personality rights. Personality rights are Fundamental Rights (Grundrechte) in the constitution and supersede all other law, especially commercial laws like copyright.

    Basically meaning that each and every German court is first and foremost required to make sure that no Fundamental Right is violated, regardless if lower specific law would dictate a different outcome in the courtroom.

    So, honestly, relax :)
    • Like Like x 3
  39. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Sorry but I read the law that is posted online and unless you are going to point to a direct prevision nothing has changed as far as i am concerned. Right to a image applies to commercial use under German law. As far as a privet photo, once one puts it in to the world wide web your argument is a moot point. Furthermore she has posted videos (taken down in recent days) I would love to have a copy of them and she has posted articals, photos, and comments, all of them are open for comment and debate. Even so, one would still need according to the German law that is listed, to prove that it was a slander and factually so. I am not saying the word privet is not in German law but I have yet to see it. Even if it is so and I am responding as I have, that it is true, that photo in this case is not privet. Privet means that, privet. Facebook is not privet unless you hide the photos and someone hacks your account. Her photos were open to the public and could even be commented on on her FB page. Showing a public photo`of someone is not slander or a insult. Also in most cases when you post a photo on a public site like FB, youtube or other social media YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS TO THE PHOTO or at least share it. She would have to prove after all else that she was the sole owner to the photo and she is not.
  40. Krautfag Member

    I added a little something to my previous post because I also felt that some more explanation was needed after I reread. Obviously you were typing at the same time :D I'll hold my answer till we get into sequence again :)
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins