quote:

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy if the photos were already published somewhere on the internet? i.e. Dom Obnoxious or Sub Psycho takes your kinky shots from CM and puts them out on Facebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy if the photos were already published somewhere on the internet? i.e. Dom Obnoxious or Sub Psycho takes your kinky shots from CM and puts them out on Facebook

I think Dom Obnoxious and Sub Psycho are scum but that people who do not want their kinky pictures in Venue B should not put them in Venue A - I have no expectation of privacy on the internet, which is why I do not use FaceBook, which is notorious for having issues with privacy.

To paraphrase someone - "Think not about what your enemies will do, but what they can do."

quote:

I can imagine instances where I would disagree - at least with the idea of who is the "scum" and to what degree the other person feels "wronged."

Say you are in an intense and meaningful relationship with someone - physically, emotionally, intellectually.
Time passes, the intensity remains high, and you are actually thinking about marriage as a possibility.

Then you discover this wonderful, loving alter-ego that you adore has been having an affair with someone else the whole time - maybe even a mutual friend.

Not saying I would post videos I might have made of us, but in this situation, exactly who is the "scum" and how "wronged" would I be entitled to feel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Isn't it standard procedure to get release forms for photos/video for anything published?

Seems porn, especially when deliberately malicious, wouldn't be an exception.

quote:

In 1998, Schlessinger's early radio mentor, Bill Ballance, sold nude photos that he had taken of Schlessinger in the mid-1970s to a company specializing in internet porn. The photos were taken while Schlessinger was involved in a brief affair with then-married Bill Ballance.[76][77] Schlessinger sued after the photos were posted on the internet,[78] claiming invasion of privacy and copyright violation. The court ruled that Schlessinger did not own the rights to the photos; she did not appeal the ruling.[79] She told her radio audience that she was embarrassed, but that the photos were taken when she was going through a divorce and had "no moral authority."[76][80]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

...
You, as the person cheated on, are absolutely entitled to feel wronged, but if you act on those feelings by publishing revenge porn, then you too are scum.

Your best revenge is to move on and live well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

I can imagine instances where I would disagree - at least with the idea of who is the "scum" and to what degree the other person feels "wronged."

Say you are in an intense and meaningful relationship with someone - physically, emotionally, intellectually.
Time passes, the intensity remains high, and you are actually thinking about marriage as a possibility.

Then you discover this wonderful, loving alter-ego that you adore has been having an affair with someone else the whole time - maybe even a mutual friend.

Not saying I would post videos I might have made of us, but in this situation, exactly who is the "scum" and how "wronged" would I be entitled to feel?

quote:

I can see a few issues to be addressed with any ban on "revenge porn".

Who has the copyright on the photographs?
If the photographer has a signed release; he owns them and has the right to do with them what he wants up to the limits stated in the release. (i.e. One time publication. Non-profit use only. or even no limitations)

quote:

Were the photographs taken in a public venue? Photos taken in a public venue are considered to entail no expectation of privacy and may be published without a written release. i.e. Topless on the picnic blanket. Skinny dipping in a public park.

quote:

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy if the photos were already published somewhere on the internet? i.e. Dom Obnoxious or Sub Psycho takes your kinky shots from CM and puts them out on Facebook

quote:


If someone posted a group shot from a fetish party; do you have legal recourse?

quote:


I can see this issue become a large fight between privacy and free speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy if the photos were already published somewhere on the internet? i.e. Dom Obnoxious or Sub Psycho takes your kinky shots from CM and puts them out on Facebook

I think Dom Obnoxious and Sub Psycho are scum but that people who do not want their kinky pictures in Venue B should not put them in Venue A - I have no expectation of privacy on the internet, which is why I do not use FaceBook, which is notorious for having issues with privacy.

To paraphrase someone - "Think not about what your enemies will do, but what they can do."

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

I can imagine instances where I would disagree - at least with the idea of who is the "scum" and to what degree the other person feels "wronged."

Say you are in an intense and meaningful relationship with someone - physically, emotionally, intellectually.
Time passes, the intensity remains high, and you are actually thinking about marriage as a possibility.

Then you discover this wonderful, loving alter-ego that you adore has been having an affair with someone else the whole time - maybe even a mutual friend.

Not saying I would post videos I might have made of us, but in this situation, exactly who is the "scum" and how "wronged" would I be entitled to feel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

I'm not an expert on copyright law. But, as I've made some chump change over the years with my photography I made sure to find out what my legal rights are.

I learned my lesson with my first sale to a newspaper. I didn't get a one time publication clause and when the photo hit the AP wire; the small town paper got the money for further publication instead of me.

I thing revenge porn is a variant on stalking behavior and should be punished accordingly. But, how to word the statutes so it doesn't criminalize other behavior that has no malicious component.
For example of extremes consider the two:
A> Picture of ex boyfriend and you in a hot tub with you wearing a string bikini on his Facebook page.
B> Posting pictures on a porn site of you indulging in a sexual act that are photo-manipulated to look like it is with a barnyard animal.

Personally, I would consider A to be innocuous but the fellow should, if polite, remove your picture if asked.
I think B would be cause to call a legal expert and inquire about starting a libel suit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

I understand malicious intent, but the main thing must be about consent. You post without consent, you break the law - as I would like to have it, that is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

I understand malicious intent, but the main thing must be about consent. You post without consent, you break the law - as I would like to have it, that is.

quote:

The crux of the matter is what constitutes consent.

A professional photographer will get written consent delineating what uses he can make of an image. This is to protect the photographer from lawsuit if he makes money from it.

quote:


If you post an image in one place it implies you have given consent for public viewing.

quote:

Does that imply consent for the image to be reproduced elsewhere for review and comment?

quote:


If someone gifts you with an image does that imply transfer of copyright and do what you like with the image? (i.e. Dr. Laura's nude photos) This seems to be the operational argument of the websites hosting "revenge porn".

quote:


Implied consent is the operational factor for images taken in public venues where there is no expectation of privacy.

quote:


So, you can take pictures at a parade a parade or festival and sell them, post them, or whatever without having to get permission from each and every person there.

quote:


On the downside; this is also the concept that makes it so hard to prosecute the pervs that are taking crotch shots with a long lens at the clothing optional beach.