Revenge porn bill introduced in Claifornia

[Jack Davenport]

Ok I am going to give two opinions on this:

If you are some uptight chick that allows your husband,girlfriend, boyfriend permission to take nude photos of you during the relationship then tough shit. If they didn't steal them and you consented double tough shit.

Now since this will probably end up in the Supreme Court eventually and if I was being paid handsomely to argue for the law, I would argue that people confide in their partners their social security numbers, medical history and other personal information within the confines of a intimate relationship that could damage them if the beneficiary of this information makes it public. Persons that divulge this information can cause the other person to suffer damages.

This is going to be interesting.


http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/revenge-porn-law-california-could-pave-way-rest-nation-8C11022538

 

[Jack Davenport]

And where the fuck is Claifornia?

 

[Mayhem]

Any time I see revenge porn, I blame Obama because he's Muslim.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Any time I see revenge porn, I blame Obama because he's Muslim.

Well then, there's that.

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

I don't have strong feelings either way about this, but I don't care for "revenge porn". Its not exactly stimulating sitting there looking at it and going "yeah! her life was probably ruined by this! *fapfapfap*"

 

[d012560c]

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/revenge-porn-law-california-could-pave-way-rest-nation-8C11022538

From the above article :

Those who might think, "Well, you shouldn't have taken those photos ... " aren't living in the real world of what has become,
especially for a younger generation, a cultural-technological phenomenon as normal as tweeting and texting.​

The article goes on to say that this line of reasoning is 'blaming the victim'. I disagree. There are many women (and men) who have never permitted anyone to photograph or film them while naked because they knew there was no way of knowing where the images would appear.

Good luck enforcing this law, if it passes. The accused will simply say the computer, mobile device, etc. got hacked and it will be up to the state to prove otherwise.

 

[Will E Worm]

I agree, except for the spouse part.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

From the above article :

Those who might think, "Well, you shouldn't have taken those photos ... " aren't living in the real world of what has become,
especially for a younger generation, a cultural-technological phenomenon as normal as tweeting and texting.​

The article goes on to say that this line of reasoning is 'blaming the victim'. I disagree. There are many women (and men) who have never permitted anyone to photograph or film them while naked because they knew there was no way of knowing where the images would appear.

Good luck enforcing this law, if it passes. The accused will simply say the computer, mobile device, etc. got hacked and it will be up to the state to prove otherwise.

People make dumb decisions it's their fault and only their fault.

Either brighten up or live with the consequences.

 

[Ari Dee]

Revenge porn is disgusting trash.

I think saying girls are dumb and deserve it because they trusted someone privately to have nudes/ footage of them is absurd and kind of hateful.
"Live with the consequences, don't be dumb."
If you think some of these men didn't manipulate, beg, record without permission, guilt, etc then you're being just as ignorant as you think these women are.

Yet you're still not blaming someone for being a major asshole and spreading private footage around to strangers?
Honestly, fuck that.
I find revenge porn to be PATHETIC and misogynistic. "OMG bate to this dumb fucking skanky bitch that trusted me in the privacy of our own home, fuck her, she sucks!! WHORE!"

Have some fucking maturity. If you expect these women to be held accountable for being in the footage, then please try to hold the people posting this shit as equally accountable and obviously pretty emotionally fucked up. *huge eye roll that breaks my face*

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

The article goes on to say that this line of reasoning is 'blaming the victim'. I disagree. There are many women (and men) who have never permitted anyone to photograph or film them while naked because they knew there was no way of knowing where the images would appear.

So those who commit fraud and cheat people out of their hard earned money shouldn't be charged with fraud? I mean, isn't it the fault of the people who trusted those people and got cheated since, hey, there are other people out there who haven't fallen victim to fraud?

Seriously, your stance is... dumb. When someone posts private material they're violating a trust, plain and simple. The fact that there are people out there who don't trust people with that kind of material doesn't make the people who did any less a victim.

 

[amnenadrom]

To use someone's image for commercial gain without their consent is already is already actionable in many states isn't it? Assumable it is hard to go after the person who actually sells the image and even harder to get the stuff removed from the internet - since you never really remove something from the internet - if a law would fill that gap go for it.
It is easy for guys to dismiss revenge porn cause they generally aren't the ones at risk of having their personal life revealed online without consent to compensation.

 

[D-rock]

I would think intellectual rights laws would also come into it. You can't really use an image of people like that without their permission if it wasn't taken in a public place and you can't prove they gave you permission to take it.

Not to mention if any actual sex is involved you need to have the people sign releases and have things like 2257 paperwork proving age to make it legal, at least in the US.

 

[d012560c]

So those who commit fraud and cheat people out of their hard earned money shouldn't be charged with fraud? I mean, isn't it the fault of the people who trusted those people and got cheated since, hey, there are other people out there who haven't fallen victim to fraud?

Victims of fraud don't consent to getting ripped off nor does the law support the person committing the crime. On the other hand, when someone allows an image of themselves to be recorded, that person gives up rights to that image to the person who records the image. See 17 USC 201. Any agreement to restrict the copyright holder's distribution of those photos should be in writing and not just a verbal agreement "not to post those images anywhere".

I would think intellectual rights laws would also come into it. You can't really use an image of people like that without their permission if it wasn't taken in a public place and you can't prove they gave you permission to take it.

Not to mention if any actual sex is involved you need to have the people sign releases and have things like 2257 paperwork proving age to make it legal, at least in the US.

The copyright belongs to the person who created the work. If person A allows person B to take A's image with some type of recording device, B owns the copyright. The exception would be if the image is a work made for hire, which clearly isn't the case in this situation.

Images of sex would need the proper 2257 documentation, as you correctly point out.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

Victims of fraud don't consent to getting ripped off nor does the law support the person committing the crime. On the other hand, when someone allows an image of themselves to be recorded, that person gives up rights to that image to the person who records the image. See 17 USC 201. Any agreement to restrict the copyright holder's distribution of those photos should be in writing and not just a verbal agreement "not to post those images anywhere".



The copyright belongs to the person who created the work. If person A allows person B to take A's image with some type of recording device, B owns the copyright. The exception would be if the image is a work made for hire, which clearly isn't the case in this situation.

Images of sex would need the proper 2257 documentation, as you correctly point out.

Copyright doesn't fall to who creates the work, it falls to who owns the film (or camera/card/etc. in the case of digital). Also, most of these cases involve pictures that women have taken themselves and sent to significant others, so actually the women would be the copyright owners. However, even when the man is the one who has taken the pictures, you're running into privacy issues with most States, especially since these "Revenge Porn" sites are generally commercial ventures. So... in order to distribute them you tend to need a release form.

 

[d012560c]

Copyright doesn't fall to who creates the work, it falls to who owns the film (or camera/card/etc. in the case of digital). Also, most of these cases involve pictures that women have taken themselves and sent to significant others, so actually the women would be the copyright owners. However, even when the man is the one who has taken the pictures, you're running into privacy issues with most States, especially since these "Revenge Porn" sites are generally commercial ventures. So... in order to distribute them you tend to need a release form.

You need to read the law (17 USC 201). Copyright belongs to the person who creates the image. Ownership of the recording device is irrelevant. See http://photoattorney.com/qa-who-owns-the-copyright/. In the cases of self-shot photos, then that person would obviously be the copyright owner.

The copyright owner can pretty much do want he/she wants with the photo, including posting the image on a website. I don't see what privacy issues arise since the person willingly allowed themselves to be photographed.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

You need to read the law (17 USC 201). Copyright belongs to the person who creates the image. Ownership of the recording device is irrelevant. See http://photoattorney.com/qa-who-owns-the-copyright/. In the cases of self-shot photos, then that person would obviously be the copyright owner.

Ah, it turns out you're correct here. I wasn't aware that American law differed in this respect. Point conceded.

The copyright owner can pretty much do want he/she wants with the photo, including posting the image on a website. I don't see what privacy issues arise since the person willingly allowed themselves to be photographed.

Here, however, you're still wrong. Sort of. The problem isn't with the photographer, never said it was, it's with the publisher in any commercial venture. This is why people have models fill out release forms. This applies when the subject is identifiable, and the privacy issue is, quite simply, from exposing them without consent. Doesn't matter if they allow themselves to be photographed. If you photograph a model in private you can sell that photo, sure, but whoever publishes it opens themselves to a civil suit (while there are some variations in the laws State-to-State, it appears to be pretty much universal).

This is why photographers have models sign waivers, because if they don't they can't sell the photos to anyone looking to publish, regardless of the model obviously knowing she's being photographed (what with her being a model and posing and all).

 

[d012560c]

The copyright owner can pretty much do want he/she wants with the photo, including posting the image on a website. I don't see what privacy issues arise since the person willingly allowed themselves to be photographed.

Here, however, you're still wrong. Sort of. The problem isn't with the photographer, never said it was, it's with the publisher in any commercial venture. This is why people have models fill out release forms. This applies when the subject is identifiable, and the privacy issue is, quite simply, from exposing them without consent. Doesn't matter if they allow themselves to be photographed. If you photograph a model in private you can sell that photo, sure, but whoever publishes it opens themselves to a civil suit (while there are some variations in the laws State-to-State, it appears to be pretty much universal).

This is why photographers have models sign waivers, because if they don't they can't sell the photos to anyone looking to publish, regardless of the model obviously knowing she's being photographed (what with her being a model and posing and all).

The model release form is not needed to legally establish copyright. Photographers get model release forms primarily so if they sell or license the image to a 3rd party, that 3rd party can be sure the photographer actually holds the copyright.

The revenge porn sites don't care or need a model release form because they are protected from liability because of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which says that websites and Internet service providers cannot be treated as a publisher for any information provided by another information content provider.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

​

The model release form is not needed to legally establish copyright. Photographers get model release forms primarily so if they sell or license the image to a 3rd party, that 3rd party can be sure the photographer actually holds the copyright.

The revenge porn sites don't care or need a model release form because they are protected from liability because of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which says that websites and Internet service providers cannot be treated as a publisher for any information provided by another information content provider.

This has nothing to do with copyright, it's about privacy. While the author of the image may possess the copyright, that does not give them impunity.

And the sites would need model release forms because they are generally publishing the materials, not simply acting as hosts/intermediaries. The only time this would not hold true were if this were simply a place where end users themselves post stuff, which these sites generally aren't. They have materials organized by the site's owners into titled galleries and are advertised with thumbnail galleries in various places across the net. Which means their hands are dirty.

 

[Petra]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/03/tech/web/revenge-porn-law-california/

Looks like the law has some loop holes. ;-\ Hopefully they'll get closed up to help better protect the victims.

As for the model release, it's there to protect the copy holder's right to the content. Without it, it's her word against the owner's word about what it can be used for. If the model decides one day to stop shooting and fall off the face of the earth, because she signed that model release, she cant' go around demanding that everyone take down the content. It also means that she can't go around filing fake DMCAs or cease and desists because a properly written Model Release will show who owns the content and how it can be used.

There's a lot of models who don't bother reading this piece of paper and get caught out later on when they find out there's not much they can do about that content being up on a site like FreeOnes.

 

[D-rock]

Victims of fraud don't consent to getting ripped off nor does the law support the person committing the crime. On the other hand, when someone allows an image of themselves to be recorded, that person gives up rights to that image to the person who records the image. See 17 USC 201. Any agreement to restrict the copyright holder's distribution of those photos should be in writing and not just a verbal agreement "not to post those images anywhere".



The copyright belongs to the person who created the work. If person A allows person B to take A's image with some type of recording device, B owns the copyright. The exception would be if the image is a work made for hire, which clearly isn't the case in this situation.

Images of sex would need the proper 2257 documentation, as you correctly point out.

I didn't say anything about somebody owning copyrighted work. People generally have the rights of their own image, and only under certain circumstances can others use it without the person who's image is being used permission. Proving somebody gave another permission to use one's image outside of pretty good documentation would be pretty difficult.