Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
Nolder

Revenge Porn

Recommended Posts

Curious as to other peoples stance on what has been termed "revenge porn".

 

The situation is this, someone has a partner and they take and share nude pictures or video with them.

Eventually the couple breaks up.

For whatever reason one partner shares the videos or pictures of their ex on the internet for other people to see.

 

Now, clearly they violated the trust placed in them but the question I am asking today is do you think that there should be a law against this?

There are laws currently in place in some places and also laws which have been struck down (most recently in Texas) which make "revenge porn" illegal.

It's an issue of property on speech. Who's property are the pictures if they were given with consent?

And is it a violation of someone's free speech to say they can't share them?

Should the people who took the images or videos have shown better judgment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal, but my pov is probably irrelevant. I think free speech is important and would generally advocate for it in the majority of cases, but having followed previous discussions I've realised I don't agree with completely unrestricted free speech, the easiest example being you (general) don't have the right to bully someone (and revenge porn is an extension of that), and I don't really care that it's a slippery slope that's hard to regulate

 

Yes, you can argue that the people involved should be more careful but that's largely irrelevant imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably illegal.

 

While the pictures were given/taken with consent, I would say thats the same as a lease or a timeshare or something. They are the property of the prospect of the photo, because its their body. They "lease" or allow the other person to have/claim ownership of the photo's until they no longer do. At that point by they may have local copies of the photo they no longer have the right to distribute them.

 

Basically the consent  aspect is "You are allowed to have these photos" and that can be taken back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyzack said:

Should be illegal.

Pretty sure it is illegal.

 

It depends where you are.

Like I said in the OP a Texas court just struck down a law against it as a violation of the first amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nolder said:

It depends where you are.

Like I said in the OP a Texas court just struck down a law against it as a violation of the first amendment.

 

Improper reading of the first amendment. I can't paint "I hope you die" on the side of my house which faces a neighbor I don't like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

Improper reading of the first amendment. I can't paint "I hope you die" on the side of my house which faces a neighbor I don't like. 

 

3 hours ago, Tyzack said:

It's also evil, mean, degrading and creepy AF.

 

Ok?

 

I'm just telling you you're wrong and that it's not illegal everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a free speech issue. It a Prvacy isssue. And whether it's illegal or not depends on whether the video or pictues were taken with consent of the person benig shown or in some states wether their was an understanding  between the parties at the time that the photo's or viedeo was taken that such would not be distributed to others. It's usually taken as irrelevant that you allowed your mate/partner to take the pictures when you were involved but do not want them to have them after you break up. 

 

 

"Improper reading of the first amendment. I can't paint "I hope you die" on the side of my house which faces a neighbor I don't like. "

 

It's not a comparable situation. In most cases the person actually gave consent to the pictures or video being taken. For it to be comparable the example would be that you gave permission for the person to paint whatever, he wanted on the side of your house, then later decided that you did not want it shared with third parties. 

 

Again, in almost every case where it has been held to be illegal the courts have found that there was never any consent given for the video or photo's  or that their was at least a tacit agreement that such photo's or video's could not be shown to third parties.

 

It's like some people who have allowed pictures of themselves doing stupid things and such pictures are then posted on facebook or some other type of social media. The person who allowed the pictures can not legally complain later that they are being deceminated or that they are used by an employer as reason to fire them or not hire them.

 

 

"They "lease" or allow the other person to have/claim ownership of the photo's until they no longer do. At that point by they may have local copies of the photo they no longer have the right to distribute them."

 

The law does not work that way.  States that have made  "anti-revenge Porn" illegal  the can be split up into two groups. In the first it's only illegal if it can be proved that such photo's were taken without consent. In the Seoncd group of states it would be illegal even if the photo's were taken with consent if it can be shown that there was an agreement not to deceminate the photo's to third parties. Such a clause can be inferred,  but since you are talking about criminal statutes the state would have to show that such a limiting clause was actually agreed to. 

 

Now the only way that decemination of such photo's or video's are for the purpose of "harrassing" the person that was photograpghed or videoptaped but the only prosecutions that I have found or in state's who have statutes that specificly include the decemination of such pictures as possibly constituting harrassement'

 

 

Here is a cite that lists the 38 states that have some form of "anti-revenge porn" statues on the books. https://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/

 

However, as I mentioned before some of these states provide that such pictures are not illegal if they were taken with consent , or it can not be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the parties agreed, at the time, that such pictures would not be deceminated to third parties, or that such decemiantion constitutes "Harrassement" as defined in a particular states statutes (or common law rulings).  Thus whehter the decemination of such pictures depends on the particulars surrounding the facts attendant to them being taken, and in what state the photo's were taken.

 

Of course this does not mean that social media outlets have to allow such on their cite's or that the person distributing such pictures of videos  or photo's is not an immoral crition. But neither makes it  an illegal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that an exclusive/monogamous relationship would reasonably (unless otherwise specified) imply that such material would remain private.  Also, correct me if I'm wrong Cubarey, but who takes the video/pics would also make a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WWWwombat said:

Seems to me that an exclusive/monogamous relationship would reasonably (unless otherwise specified) imply that such material would remain private.  Also, correct me if I'm wrong Cubarey, but who takes the video/pics would also make a big difference.

Whether material was intended remain private would arguably be a question of fact based on the facts of the particular case. Not only who takes the video/pics make a big difference but as in the actual case cited by Nolder there is a seperate question of how the deceminator of the pics got the video/pics. In the case at hand one of the participants shared a cloud account with his grilfriend. If he willingly put the pictures on the shared account I do not see how he can claim that has a valid privacy interest that has legal protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Whether material was intended remain private would arguably be a question of fact based on the facts of the particular case. Not only who takes the video/pics make a big difference but as in the actual case cited by Nolder there is a seperate question of how the deceminator of the pics got the video/pics. In the case at hand one of the participants shared a cloud account with his grilfriend. If he willingly put the pictures on the shared account I do not see how he can claim that has a valid privacy interest that has legal protection. 

You have a photo album in your house. 

You invite me in your home. You say "Here have a look at the family photo album"

I then proceed to post it for everyone on the internet.
 

Same thing, different technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nolder said:

It would be more akin to him giving you a copy of his album.

Not really.
A cloud full of pictures can exist to be viewed. (Look at services like Photobucket).
 

If I gave you access to my cloud, You're able to view the files, you can download them, (technically seeing any picture online means you download it), but you don't own the intellectual property that is within it.
Distributing my intellectual property against my express wishes, infringes upon my intellectual property rights.

To put it another way. 

If you went to Photobucket, and started downloading artwork/pictures, and then tried selling/passing it off as your own, that's copyright infringement.

The only difference between that, and revenge porn is you're more likely to get caught distributing revenge porn... getting caught distributing it is kind of the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If I gave you access to my cloud, You're able to view the files, you can download them, (technically seeing any picture online means you download it), but you don't own the intellectual property that is within it.
Distributing my intellectual property against my express wishes, infringes upon my intellectual property rights."

 

Sure I cannot sell your intellectual property and make a profit but the issue you do not address is that by giving me access to your cloud account yuo are voiding your claim of "privacy". Unless you can make a claim that access to the cloud was conditional on my agreement not to disclose anything disclosed there your giving me access voids your legal claim to a privcy right to whats in the cloud.

On 5/21/2019 at 3:16 PM, SinisterDeath said:

You have a photo album in your house. 

You invite me in your home. You say "Here have a look at the family photo album"

I then proceed to post it for everyone on the internet.
 

Same thing, different technology.

And when you showed me the qalbum you gave me access to technalogy to duplicate the materials therein then your claim to a privacy interest in the pictures would have very little legal validity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you went to Photobucket, and started downloading artwork/pictures, and then tried selling/passing it off as your own, that's copyright infringement.

The only difference between that, and revenge porn is you're more likely to get caught distributing revenge porn... getting caught distributing it is kind of the point."

 

You are mixing two very different concepts. Copyright infringement is an economic right to the product of your sweat. You cannot "steal" my copyrighted material and make money of it in the same way you can not take the contents of my wallet. It's an economic right. A prviacy is a right to keep personal matters outside the perview of the public. Integral to the right of privacy is the notion that you have done nothing to endanger the private nature of such information. You cannot claim that a person who you gave access to such information is violating your privacy by deceminating such information unless you can show that the information was given with the proviso that it would not be further deceminated or used.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

And when you showed me the qalbum you gave me access to technalogy to duplicate the materials therein then your claim to a privacy interest in the pictures would have very little legal validity. 

In this scenario, you are showing me your private family photo album.

 

The fact that I could pull out a handheld scanner, scan them, and then proceed to upload them to the internet without even telling you I'm doing so. It is generally implied through social contract that a person won't effectively steal your photos without telling you the owner, what you're plans are with said photos. Just like If I were to show you artwork I painted, you take a picture of it, and then you proceed to post it online and act as if you were the original artist.

 

The legal validity of these practices are being discussed precisely because the laws of the land & the constitution haven't caught up with technology. They' barely help to protect artists from plagiarism, and they sure in the hell don't help individuals in-regards to privacy concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

You are mixing two very different concepts. Copyright infringement is an economic right to the product of your sweat. You cannot "steal" my copyrighted material and make money of it in the same way you can not take the contents of my wallet. It's an economic right. 

Economic side of things yes, but you're forgetting that many artists don't personally profit from their works. (specially online). Many go the route of open licensing that allows anyone to use their work, so long as they acknowledge that they did the work. Effectively you're saying that if an artist doesn't seek to  profit from their work, and you come along and steal it, That's fine. Because there was no economic harm. :wink:

 

5 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

A prviacy is a right to keep personal matters outside the perview of the public. Integral to the right of privacy is the notion that you have done nothing to endanger the private nature of such information. You cannot claim that a person who you gave access to such information is violating your privacy by deceminating such information unless you can show that the information was given with the proviso that it would not be further deceminated or used.

And again, the laws have not been updated to reflect technology.

 

This is why I brought up a photo album.

It exists as a physical object in your home. 

It is implied that photo album does not leave that house. 

That I may view it and it's contents, but those contents do not leave that house without your express consent.

The fact that there exists technology, that I can simply scan the photos, or take pictures of those photos with the glasses I wear, and then distribute them, against your wishes is why said laws probably need to be updated to reflect technology. That perhaps it should be codified in law that personal pictures are private unless verbally or writtenly expressed otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Economic side of things yes, but you're forgetting that many artists don't personally profit from their works. (specially online). Many go the route of open licensing that allows anyone to use their work, so long as they acknowledge that they did the work. Effectively you're saying that if an artist doesn't seek to  profit from their work, and you come along and steal it, That's fine. Because there was no economic harm. :wink:"

 

Nope, because we are talking about copyright law and the cases decided under it. Under the law someone who owns the copyright has an absolute right to conrtol distribution whether or not he is actively attempting to profit or not. The theory is that others using it would prevent him from gaining that economic benefit if he wanted to profit from his copyright. 

 

 

"That I may view it and it's contents, but those contents do not leave that house without your express consent."

 

Except that the example is not quite right. In the given case a third person was given access to a cloud account with the ability to download and copy anything in said account. 

 

Put it this way if you show me an album in your house of you having sex, you usually do not lose the right to restrict the photos but you do usually give up the right to prevent someone you showed the album to from describing the content to others. Moreover, if you let me look at the album when I have a camera and you do not at least tell me that I cannot look at the album when I have the camera you likely would be deemed to have waived your privacy rights.

 

 

"That perhaps it should be codified in law that personal pictures are private unless verbally or writtenly expressed otherwise?"

 

The real question is not the "personal nature of the pictures" but whehther your actions are consistent with you attempt them to keep them private. If you publish a picture to a private facebook group and do not specificly provide that the pictures cannot be copied or otherwise deceminated outside the group you probably have lost any claim to privacy for those pictures. They issue has been, is and likely will remain whether your actions are consistent with keeping the pictures private or whether your actions waive any privacy interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Except that the example is not quite right. In the given case a third person was given access to a cloud account with the ability to download and copy anything in said account. 

 

Know your facebook acount?

I can download and copy anything on your account. I can steal your photo pretty easily.

Viewing a cloud, and viewing the pictures requires the ability to download (copy).
Viewing any photo on your computer downloads a copy of said photo.

That's just how computers & the internet work. 

If you view the cloud no differently that photo hosting sites like photobucket, there is no way to offer read only access without the ability to copy/download a file, while still letting people view the contents with implied consent to view, but not distribute.

 

Quote

Put it this way if you show me an album in your house of you having sex, you usually do not lose the right to restrict the photos but you do usually give up the right to prevent someone you showed the album to from describing the content to others. Moreover, if you let me look at the album when I have a camera and you do not at least tell me that I cannot look at the album when I have the camera you likely would be deemed to have waived your privacy rights.

Describing what you see cannot be restricted. Obviously.

 

In your camera scenario, how do I know you have one? 

Granted, today we have cell phones which all have cameras, but the principle is the same. Unless you disclose to me that you have a camera, how can i then say don't take photos of these pictures?

Would not a reasonable person assume, in their home, that a person isn't actively hiding a camera on their person at all times to then disseminate the private affairs that are happening within those walls?

Now if you pull out your phone or DSLR camera and I don't say anything about taking photos the photo album, you might have more of a point.

 

Quote

The real question is not the "personal nature of the pictures" but whether your actions are consistent with you attempt them to keep them private. If you publish a picture to a private facebook group and do not specificly provide that the pictures cannot be copied or otherwise deceminated outside the group you probably have lost any claim to privacy for those pictures. They issue has been, is and likely will remain whether your actions are consistent with keeping the pictures private or whether your actions waive any privacy interest.

Many of those websites/groups have within their own rules & regulations that basically state that anything posted here is to remain private and not distributed/copied. That any and all photos are the property of the owner who posted them.

Something along those lines.

But yes, if you post a risque picture on your facebook wall, that's not going to help you any. But Clouds are tricky when it comes to sharing and viewing data. 

 

All I'm getting at is that laws need to get updated, and people need to get educated on what their rights & responsibilities are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Know your facebook acount?

I can download and copy anything on your account. I can steal your photo pretty easily.

Viewing a cloud, and viewing the pictures requires the ability to download (copy).
Viewing any photo on your computer downloads a copy of said photo.

That's just how computers & the internet work. 

If you view the cloud no differently that photo hosting sites like photobucket, there is no way to offer read only access without the ability to copy/download a file, while still letting people view the contents with implied consent to view, but not distribute."

 

Which is why I argue that you do not have any privacy rights to things posted in your facebook account etc.

 

 

"All I'm getting at is that laws need to get updated, and people need to get educated on what their rights & responsibilities are."

 

I would say that the real issue is that people should acknowledge that posting material to sites that others can view is counter to their privacy interests and concerns. If you shout shout out in what you presume to be an empty lot secrets and someone overhears you have lost your right to keep the information you shouted out private. It's not a good argument for you to assert that you wrongly believed that the lot was empty of people. Same is true for the cloud and internet in general.  That you wish that they were private does not in anyway effect the fact that they are not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...