4 ms·

It was more difficult than I thought it would be to counter your argument, as there hasn't been a judgement on the exact same circumstances, so I think downvoti

by roel_v 12y ago

It was more difficult than I thought it would be to counter your argument, as there hasn't been a judgement on the exact same circumstances, so I think downvoting you is unjustified. But I still think your legal reasoning is flawed. First, "It is not clear whether or not the right under copyright law to copy an image is always sufficient to give you a right to publish the image" is misleading - yes copyright does cover the right to publish, what you're getting at is the special protection of the publication of people's images. Secondly, looking at it from this angle, the Von Hannover judgements of the ECHR provide a number of criteria for judging the lawfullness of publication. One of them is the earlier behaviour of the person in consideration, from which (given the circumstances of him publishing the picture himself) it is easily derived that this publishing cannot reasonably be considered unlawful. Also the other criteria (is the publication harmful, circumstances the picture were taken etc) don't point at anything that would indicate that whoever published this picture, did so unlawfully. When you look at previous judgements of the ECHR, it is highly unlikely that a case would even be admitted because it seems self-evident that the person depicted didn't think through the effects of putting his picture online and/or doesn't like who is re-publishing his picture. Which is not a valid legal argument. FWIW yes I have a law degree but have never practiced.

vidarh 12y ago
> But I still think your legal reasoning is flawed. I did not make a legal reasoning. I pointed out that the issue is not clear. > Secondly, looking at it from this angle, the Von Hannover judgements of the ECHR provide a number of criteria for judging the lawfullness of publication. You can't only look at the ECHR, as the ECHR is not itself law and the national laws implementing it in each state subject to it differ greatly. The ECHR is relevant because it is the source of most of this legislation, but as long as the national laws implementing the principles are not in conflict with the ECHR, the can - and often does - add additional restrictions. Which is why I pointed out that the issue is not clear and that simply pointing to the license is insufficient. As I pointed out, in the UK (which I used as an example only because I live here) it is clear that copyright is insufficient to control your right to publish. In fact, in addition to the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the Copyright, Design and Patents Act both add additional restrictions that may prevent or limit publication beyond copyright. I don't know the extent of legal restrictions in the rest of Europe.
- roel_v 12y ago
  I'm not sure what we're arguing any more - if it's 'is in abstract terms copyright the only legal protection of content distribution' then the answer is an unsurprising and boring 'of course not'. But if we're talking about this specific case, there is a) copyright, and b) the additional rights of those depicted in a (potentially) copyrighted work, which in terms of the ECHR boils down to art 8 vs art 10. (privacy vs freedom of speech). Which, as I argued before, when measured against the criteria the ECHR laid out for the application and interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, can only be reasonably explained one way in the current case. More specifically, I do not see how national legislation can, in this case, give the GP any right to ask the website that uses his picture to take it down while still be within the bounds that the Court laid out in previous rulings. Of course I'm just typing here between compiles with a quick Google left and right to roughly check the general validity of what I'm saying, so I did not do an extensive study on the implementations of various relevant laws in all signatories to the ECHR. So if you have any national legislation that you think would give the GP a case, and that would hold up when brought before the ECHR would be held in compliance with the Convention, then we can proceed from there.

by roel_v 12y ago

vidarh 12y ago

> But I still think your legal reasoning is flawed. I did not make a legal reasoning. I pointed out that the issue is not clear. > Secondly, looking at it from this angle, the Von Hannover judgements of the ECHR provide a number of criteria for judging the lawfullness of publication. You can't only look at the ECHR, as the ECHR is not itself law and the national laws implementing it in each state subject to it differ greatly. The ECHR is relevant because it is the source of most of this legislation, but as long as the national laws implementing the principles are not in conflict with the ECHR, the can - and often does - add additional restrictions. Which is why I pointed out that the issue is not clear and that simply pointing to the license is insufficient. As I pointed out, in the UK (which I used as an example only because I live here) it is clear that copyright is insufficient to control your right to publish. In fact, in addition to the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the Copyright, Design and Patents Act both add additional restrictions that may prevent or limit publication beyond copyright. I don't know the extent of legal restrictions in the rest of Europe.

roel_v 12y ago
I'm not sure what we're arguing any more - if it's 'is in abstract terms copyright the only legal protection of content distribution' then the answer is an unsurprising and boring 'of course not'. But if we're talking about this specific case, there is a) copyright, and b) the additional rights of those depicted in a (potentially) copyrighted work, which in terms of the ECHR boils down to art 8 vs art 10. (privacy vs freedom of speech). Which, as I argued before, when measured against the criteria the ECHR laid out for the application and interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, can only be reasonably explained one way in the current case. More specifically, I do not see how national legislation can, in this case, give the GP any right to ask the website that uses his picture to take it down while still be within the bounds that the Court laid out in previous rulings. Of course I'm just typing here between compiles with a quick Google left and right to roughly check the general validity of what I'm saying, so I did not do an extensive study on the implementations of various relevant laws in all signatories to the ECHR. So if you have any national legislation that you think would give the GP a case, and that would hold up when brought before the ECHR would be held in compliance with the Convention, then we can proceed from there.