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 unsu

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.