Martin,
I invite you to post a copy of your law degree, license, and
credentials for the edification of this group. In the interim
and in the event that you are correct, I strongly encourage the
IASA to avoid ever holding an IETF meeting in Germany again
without first obtaining appropriate legal advice that it is
acceptable given our existing conditions to record the names and
identities of anyone participating in any IETF activity, whether
they are explicitly sign something, are photographed, are
identified by RFID, have their names written down after they
stay something at a microphone or on Jabber, raise their hands
(presumably in the expectation of being identified), or can be
identified in some other way. Of course, an acceptable
alternative to "no meetings in Germany or any other country with
the rules you suggest apply" would be explicit permission on
registration forms as a condition of attendance. Or,
presumably, a Chair could make an announcement that anyone who
continues to sit in a particular room is giving permission for
such identification.
As Christian suggests, we simply have to be able to identify
participants in WG sessions, even silent ones, to have an open
standards process.
Again, I will strongly defend your right to privacy, absence of
identifying photography, etc. Just do not simultaneously claim
that right and the right to participate in the IETF.
john
--On Tuesday, 24 April, 2012 21:34 +0200 Martin Rex
<mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael StJohns wrote:
>>
>> While Wikipedia is sometimes wrong, it does tend to have
>> useful information.= Specifically
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_c
>> on= sent_requirements#Germany
>>
>> > Publishing or propagating the image does not normally
>> > require consent: If the person is an irrelevant or merely
>> > accidental part (Beiwerk) of a landscape or locality shown
>> > in the picture.
>> > If the person took part in a public meeting or event and is
>> > depicted on this occasion.
>> > If distribution or exhibition serves a higher artistic
>> > interest.
>>
>> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html
>
> That information in an incorrect translation, and it is
> quoting only part (1) of the article and missing part (2).
>
>
> §22 (1) 2.+ 3. KunstUrhG are quite related in the intent
>
>
> the translation of (2) captures the original meaning correctly:
>
> 2. Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer
> Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen;
>
>> > If the person is an irrelevant or merely accidental part
>> > (Beiwerk) of a landscape or locality shown in the picture.
>
>
> The translation of (3) is not quite correct:
>
> 3. Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen
> Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen
> teilgenommen haben;
>
>> > If the person took part in a public meeting or event and is
>> > depicted on this occasion.
>
> This is about pictures of an (public) assembly, parade or
> similar event which the pictured peoples participated, and NOT
> the other way round!
>
> The translation you quoted is flawed logic.
>
> from the rules:
> 1. all men are mortals
> 2. socrates was a man
> you can infer "socrates was mortal",
>
> But infering the reverse "all mortals are men", "all men are
> socrates" or "all mortals are socrates" amounts to flawed
> logic.
>
>
> When making a photo of the audience(!) with a small number of
> people prominently in the foreground, then the exclusion no
> longer applies and you will need consent of the folks in order
> to _publish_ such a photo, similar for taking pictures of the
> _spectators_ of a parade.
>
> For people doing presentations in front, or speaking at the
> podium of a public assembly or convention, the exception may
> apply to a singular depicted person if it is still a "picture
> of the event" (i.e. a picture in context).
>
> Just because someone participates an assembly, convention or is
> the spectator of a parade does NOT result in a general loss of
> control over pictures&portraits of that person.
>
>
> -Martin