Customize

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. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Again I am waiting for you to post something specific as far as a law, you can say there is a law 1000 times does not make it so.

    Germany

    In Germany personality rights are protected under the German civil code. The concepts of an "absolute person of contemporary history" which allow the depiction of individuals who are part history but still gives them some protection of their rights of privacy outside the public sphere.
    A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case BGH 1 ZR 49/97 (1 December 1999), Translated by Raymond Youngs (Copyright: Professor Basil Markesinis, ‘Always on the Same Path’ and ‘Essays on Foreign Law and Comparative Methodology’, Hart Publishing 2001, reproduced here as fair use of a legal decision):[3]
    Sec. II; para. 1. The general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Arts 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an "other right" protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (constant case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338 - readers' letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one's own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG) and the right to one's name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them (reference omitted).

    Nothing above not even (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG) speaks to this, it covers commercial use of the image. You have a right to protect others from profiting from your image especially say like a preacher having his photo used in a alcohol add without his approval. Or as I read it he could still file a complaint just because it harmed his image and the person posting it should have known that he did not support drinking and therefore it harmed him. But even then there could still be a hard fight as there are exceptions for that.

    Again please provide proof.

    Again people are put in German papers all the time with stories they don't like, TV shows making fun of people Etc. If Scientolgy could have sued over its members images then they would have.
    Uh oh German Anons, get those photos of the clams off of YouTube quick, you all are braking the law! LOL After all you edit them to make them look bad bla bla bla. This law you are speaking of is not there and you are twisting the law that I have read. But please feel free to post a link to actual German law that says otherwise.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Krautfag Member

    Will do tomorrow...if you really want to crunch it down, I'll do a wall of text seminary. But I am definitely too tired for that now, 2.30am internet forum posting 4tw.
  3. Xenu Is Lord Member

    As long as you can source it, I am game.
  4. Xenu Is Lord Member

    I love the fact that she has the amount she wants all worked out too. 100,000.00 Euros! LOL Looks like a 5 year old wrote it. Well, now her photo is all over the place. I guess she will get a 100,0000000000 bizillian dollars after all her suits! Dumb Ass can only come out a looser on this one.
    [IMG]
    FOR
    Birgit-Springl--4.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Krautfag Member

    Will do, but will most certainly take some time to collect and read the relevant High Court decisions.

    You can chew on the translation of this one meanwhile: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Thank you. For the record I have read it and still see no issue.
  7. Xenu Is Lord Member

    As far as the privet issue, it is what one expects. They make referance that even someone in a privet corner of a privet resturant could apply but spacficly spell out:

    "On 6 August 2004 was, however, § 201a of the Criminal Code (CC) ("Violation of the highly personal area of ​​life through photographs") came into force [14], which provides under certain circumstances, even to the naked create a criminal penalty. Thereafter shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year or with fine, who

    (1) of another person in an apartment or a specially protected area is located opposite view, unauthorized photographs manufactures or transfers, in violation of their most personal lives.
    (2) Likewise punished, who used one through an act under paragraph 1 produced image recording or a third party makes accessible.
    (3) Any person who authorized produced to capture from another person in an apartment or one is to look specially protected area, knowingly unauthorized one makes available to third parties and thus violated their most personal sphere of life, is punished with imprisonment up to one year or with fine penalized."

    It also gives specific breakdowns of things like Commercial use, dead people, Etc. There is not a blanket case of any photo someone has a issue with. Again she put the photo out in to the public world. He did not hack a privet photo. He did not link to her privet photo collection nor is the photo her "most privet life". So that is one thing I did not know before. It sounds like it is not enough for it to be a photo but must be of a privet nature to begin with. I don't think a face photo one takes of their self falls in to that. That photo was taken by her with the intent that it be used to ID her. The more I read the less of a case she would have even if he lived in Germany.
  8. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Oooops they might have a case after all!

    When photographing people outside of the private sector may be due to a violation of the general right to privacy under certain circumstances (in this case mentally Confused) to intervene, the police confiscate the images, even when there is no reason to fear that a publication is made of the images [15].
    Civil claims.

    We all know the Scientology members are mentally confused!
  9. Really?

    fknqo.jpg
    • Like Like x 2
  10. CarltonBANKS Member

    i do not care for english law or german law. only swedish.

    (Just to clarify - off course I care about German and English law, I was trolling)

    DID YOU NOT WATCH THE SONG?



    Watch the fucking song!
  11. CarltonBANKS Member

    It isn't.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Ackerland Member

    XenuIsLord:
    may I remind you that it was you who went on the "is it legal in Germany" tangent:
    whether the pictures are published in a commercial or non-commercial setting really make no difference. The pictures are obviously hers and she has the power to decide when and where to publish it. If she decides to remove it from the Internet, she can do so at any time.
    Now if someone else does it against her will, it's a question of whether her wishes are enforceable. In your case I dont think they are.


    Ask Julian where it got him disregarding swedish law, even though he was in the UK, now with the new European arrest warrant.
  13. Xenu Is Lord Member

    You might want to read the German code. It does make a diffrence and their code even makes that distention. To say it does not is pure ignorance in the face of what is written in black and white. They even cover examples of how each applies and under what circumstance it is relevant. Do you think the German law makers just type up things for the fun of it but I have to take your word that their laws mean nothing, silly silly you :)

    Show me where in the German code it says she can force others to remove public photos of her that she made available? "If she decides to remove it from the Internet, she can do so at any time." Of curse she can and no one is stopping her. "it's a question of whether her wishes are enforceable" Dude, with all respects, you just argued my point for me (NOT ENFORCEABLE) means it is not against the law! We agree on that one.

    You are going to remind me? Of what? I have not changed my point of view on this issue except after reading the law I am more sure than before I am correct on this issue. This is not a privet photo, of a privet setting in a privet collection. If it was any one of those things she might have a legal argument.

    Again the German law does not say (You control all images of you all the time without exception).
  14. Ackerland Member

    Do you really have to stoop to these lows to lead an argument?

    § 22 Kunsturhebergesetz (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 or monetary penalty is prosecuted, who contrary to § 22, 23 spreads or publishes a depiction.
    (2) The deed is only prosecuted upon petition.

    You are comparing apples to oranges. You claimed even in Germany it was legal to publish fotos like these without consent of the person depicted. I disagree. Whether this law is enforceable in other countries is an entirely different matter, that doesnt make it legal though.

    You seem to only be citing from those laws that fit your views, but really, the "Kunsturhebergesetz" is applicable here.
  15. Xenu Is Lord Member

    You are the one stooping low. You have proved nothing. Ohhhhhh wow With imprisonment up to one year or monetary penalty is prosecuted, who contrary to § 22, 23 spreads or publishes a depiction. so what? You highlight the consequences of what? Just focus on the penalties and you win? Penalties for what? The part of the law you are reading from covers COMPENSATED use of a portrait (IE commercial use). Section 22. They even extend rights to the family after death for 10 years and to make my point further read the part about depictions done on a commission! You are not making any relevant point. Care to read the sections AGAIN that cover things like (1) of another person in an apartment or a specially protected area is located opposite view, unauthorized photographs manufactures or transfers, in violation of their most personal lives. Under S201a?

    YES THE LAW DOES MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NON COMMERCIAL USE and furthermore it clarifies what is and what is not a privet photo. This photo is not privet, it was entered by her in to the public arena and he is not making a profit from it. YOU DON"T PUT THINGS LIKE (4. Depictions, which weren't done on comission, so far as the spreading or publishing serves some higher intrests of art.) unless they are an exception.

    I will keep repeating myself and you will keep not providing me with a code that says:

    (You control all images of you all the time without exception). You can't because one does not exist and the reason there are so many exceptions is because there is not a blanket law as you keep harping about. But what are you arguing? You have already admitted that you don't believe there is a enforceable code.
    I am hitting low because I provide facts? Or is it that I am asking you to provide facts. There are two part to this. 1, Providing the code 2, interpretation of the code . I see neither making his use of the photo illegal. Sure there are a few scary things in the law that might look bad (until you read the exceptions) and the over all code. The paragraphs in the code and subsections should be read in their entirety.
  16. telomere Member

    Sadly,
    Xenu knows more about Law than everyone else on Teegeeack combined.
    He's only been doing this for 75 million years,
    all you localfags who think you know your own local laws should STFU when the Supreme Roolah is talking.
  17. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Funny to say the least. But really, we got the law right here in front of us. I welcome anyone to point out (You control all images of you all the time without exception) or tell me how the exceptions that are right in front of my face don't apply?
  18. telomere Member

    I have already surrendered. I'm just pointing out the fact that I've surrendered, and conceded.
    I hope you don't mind.
  19. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Also as I undestand it Facebook requires you pass on the rights.

    Right, yes, I get that facebook has license to use any IP content you upload but this is very different from giving away your copyright.

    It is standard practice to enter into a contract that gives a third party permission to distribute your content when you sign up to social media websites. Otherwise they wouldn't be covered for you putting up your own photos on their website. They have to be covered for all media in perpetuity because anything could happen to the technology or to you that could put facebook in a logistical nightmare should they had to constantly check on the various copyrights for content.
  20. Xenu Is Lord Member

    So have I. Want to argue about who surrendered first? :)
  21. Anonymous Member

    XenuIsLord, I think some did not understand your question (me neither in first place), if a person has always the rights on her photo even if she published it.
    It seems to me one has to check the conditions of the site where the pic was published. If taken from FB, I just don't know, but afaik you pratctically sell your soul to FB upon registration.
    Taking it from a personal site, she should have still the right to decide / has to be asked before usage.
  22. Ackerland Member

    I see. I let the others be the judge of that.

    No it doesn't. You're probably referring to http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/BJNR000070907.html

    The former translation is not 100% correct, it should be:
    "Images may only be distributed or shown publicly with the consent of the depicted person. If in doubt, consent is assumed as given if the person received monetary compensation for allowing to have his image taken."

    Even with the former, less accurate translation, it is beyond me how you actually manage to read a distinction between illegal private and illegal commercial use into this. If at all, it makes a difference for damages you have to pay, nothing more.

    Again, apple and oranges. In my first reply to your question I made quite a clear distinction between copyright laws, and privacy laws. You're coming up with an entirely, in this case, inapplicable law to try to prove your point.

    You can write in caps all you want, it doesn't make what you write more true. And it doesn't make you a winner in any argument.

    A court will be hard-pressed to see a context of art in the way CarltonBanks published these fotos. I don't se how any of the exceptions apply.

    Frankly, in the end, I do not care whether you're going to repeat yourself.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Anonymous Member

    Damnit. Will all you e-lawyers please get a room?

    HugsAndKisses.gif
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Krautfag Member

    Having reread the argument with enough sleep, it appears that all the buzz revolves around different views of
    § 22 KUG and what it means.

    § 22 KUG
    (1) Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.
    (1) Depictions may only be distributed or publically exhibited with the consent of the depicted.

    (2) Die Einwilligung gilt im Zweifel als erteilt, wenn der Abgebildete dafür, daß er sich abbilden ließ, eine Entlohnung erhielt.
    (2) If in doubt, consent shall be assumed in case the depicted been given compensation for his allowance to be depicted.

    I omitted the rest, where death of the depicted is handled.

    If you interpret German law the method to use is called "Subsummation".
    Basically you take every word, look up the definiton of the word from the commentaries and established court sentences,
    compare it with the actual fact and conclude if the facts match the law or not.

    Let's do it.
    All definitions come from Dreier/Schulze, UrhG Commentary, not available online, C. H. Beck ISBN 978-3-406-57758-1

    I) KUG, §22,1 "Depictions may only be distributed or publically exhibited with the consent of the depicted."
    a) Do we have a depiction?
    A depiction means any form of picture of an individually recognizable person.
    We have a non-pixelated photo.
    -> It's a depiction.
    b) Do we have consent?
    Consent means
    aa) existance of consent, either explicit or implicit
    The scilon posted the pic herself on the internet.
    -> Consent was there at some point.
    ab) by the depicted
    It's a depiction of her.
    -> Consent still there.
    ac) and is the intended publication covered by the given consent.
    She cleary declares she does not want the specific site to publish her picture.
    -> C-C-C-Combobreaker. No consent anymore. Checking failed.

    At this point you can skip the checking of the rest, because the fact checking for consent failed,
    meaning that §22,1 does not allow for the publication in question.
    If it were okay, you'd now check "depicted", "distributed" and "publically exhibited".

    Okay, 22,1 is against us, let's see if the rest does us any good.

    II) KUG, §22,2 "If in doubt, consent shall be assumed in case the depicted been given compensation for his allowance to be depicted."

    a) Do we have doubt?
    Doubt is selfexplanatory.
    There is argument.
    -> Doubt existing
    b) Do we have compensation?
    Compensation means any form of advantage, material or immaterial.
    Scilon didn't get anything when the photo was taken.
    -> No compensation existing. Checking failed.

    §22,2 not working for us either. I guess that was the one that led Xenu into the commercial/ownership avenue, due to the mentioning
    of compensation/monies, where I stupidly followed him, when in fact ownership has nothing to do with the whole thing whatsoever,
    as it always says "the depicted", not "the copypright owner".

    We could co on to check §§ 23 and 24, where the justifications are listed, but I am too lazy for that
    and you won't find justification anyway. If you don't believe me, check for yourself using the method outlined.
    You can however find there the justifications when you take/publish photos of scilons in public action.

    For more reading, you can find a good collection of court decisions here:
    http://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Allgemeines-Persoenlichkeitsrecht/Recht-am-eigenen-Bild/

    TL;DR: Krautfag is a disgusting smart-ass e-lawyer.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Krautfag Member

    Yeah, I watched. And yeah, it's basically a pointless discussion. Prolly just going on because we had nothing better to do. Sorry again.

    To be actually helpful:
    As your site is hosted in Sweden, Swedish laws apply. She can threaten all that she wants with German, Swiss or English laws, it's moot. She probably knows this and didn't even bother to send the take-down notice through a lawyer, to save money.

    Now to find out what Swedish law says about privacy, ownership of images and so on...Sadly I am of no help, cause my command of the Swedish language basically consists of "heja sverige" and that's it.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. CarltonBANKS Member

    Kids,

    Birgit has been lurking for quite some time. [cant / won't give more details]

    I empathise with her situation, but she's more deeply involved than you might think. [wont post details here]


    Ackerkand is right to point out that it's not nice. It's not. After careful consideration I feel this is the right thing to do. To disrupt corporate Scientology , I think this is essential. (unless you'd rather be like old guard and just hold placards in front of orgs for the next few decades - not to disparage the valuable work that they do)

    It's healthy that we have debates on where to draw the line, ethically.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. CarltonBANKS Member

    If they jail Julian Assange will the leaked cables still be in the public domain? Yes
    If they kill Assange will it make the cables go away? No

    My point is just that the aim is to get the info out there.
  28. grebe Member

    Doesn't surprise me.

    Locking gas cap, shredder, dog, Mr. Banks.
  29. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Frankly, in the end, I do not care whether you're going to repeat yourself. But we both know you wont, you will just keep changing your argument.
  30. CarltonBANKS Member

    Guess what just happened.

    I checked the SL email and Birgit accidentally emailed doxx to me. She got the email addresses mixed up. Bless. D'oh!

    I don't mean to sound like a fag when I say this, but I do have a heart, and i do care about victims like her.
    • Like Like x 4
  31. Xenu Is Lord Member

    ?
  32. Xenu Is Lord Member

    PS, I hope for gods sake you don't take anything anyone says on this board serious. If she is making legal threats, you need to contact a lawyer and get real legal advise.
  33. Ackerland Member

    Good. I wanted you to be aware of what your website means for this individual. I have no information about how deeply she is involved and whether she has leadership roles in any of Scientology's front groups. With what I know about her, I think she is no big fish and personally, I would not put her info out on the web as you did. But then again, I will not try to make you take down that webpage. She *is* involved and supports an organisation that violates human rights on a daily basis. That makes it a bit more difficult for me to condemn what you're doing.
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Anonymous Member

    MY NAME IS Birgit Springl and I control the Internet!
    5bcl8m.jpg.png
  35. TinyDancer Member

    No, your translation is much more clear than Google translate. Thank you.
  36. TinyDancer Member

    Please read article 22 as translated by Anons'R'us, not google, and point out the basis upon which you conclude that it only applies to commercial contexts.

    Edit: Okay, I see that you've read the section and still misunderstand it.

    IANAGL, but IAAL (for over 20 years).
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Xenu Is Lord Member

    I have pointed it out repeatedly, if you don't see what I am seeing after all the explanations I have given then we are not going to see eye to eye on this. It is you who is misunderstanding it.
  38. Mutante Member

    what is all this nazi nonsense about anyway
  39. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Correct me if I am wrong but I just noticed something on your site. Don't know how I missed it. She is listed as Italian follower of Scientology? Is she living in Italy or a Italian citizen now? If so, I want to get this right? An Italian is calming she is going to use a German law to sue you in England for a photo that is not hosted there?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins