This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.
That was my thought as well but remember the story about right to be forgotten. That case said it's ok to censor someone and have them remove totally factual articles and links. It was the online equivalent of if you don't like what someone said about you in a book then they have to stop printing it and pull it from store shelves, and bookstores have to remove all traces of it ever existing from their system.
It would have been a totally different lawsuit if it happened across the pond. Here in the US this would have been Copyright and First Amendment (both explicitly given to the gov) vs something much more nebulous (defamation or publicity rights maybe). Of course, here in the US they've determined that the first amendment doesn't cover "obscene" speech. Pity they don't really define obscene.
Another thing is that in most marriages the assets are merged. It's always tricky to divide everything in the divorce. The common (American at least) feeling is "she gets everything, and he gets to keep the clothes on his back."