2 ms·
This is a bad argument (as in, an argument that if followed leads to harmful conclusions) because it says the reason that redistribution of private naked selfie
by geofft 8y ago
This is a bad argument (as in, an argument that if followed leads to harmful conclusions) because it says the reason that redistribution of private naked selfies is bad is it harms the market value of naked selfies. It leads to all sorts of exciting nonsense like using the DMCA to stop revenge porn, and useless situations like the copyright owner of nonconsensual naked selfies being the photographer and not the subject.
Let's instead say that people have a right to control of their naked image for reasons that aren't about the property rights to the photo.
- NicoJuicy 8y agoBut you are wording it differently to your liking. In the meantime, it's just the same. It's you and you have the rights to it. It solves a problem. Your solution is weird and not generic
- geofft 8y agoNo, I identified two specific reasons why it's not the same: 1) in the US at least, copyright infringement is only criminal if done for financial gain (or a few other exceptions) 2) in all jurisdictions with the Berne definition of copyright, the copyright of a photo is owned by a photographer. So even if it's you, you don't have the rights to it if you didn't take the picture, and you can't pursue a copyright violation. So if your ex took a picture of you with your consent at the time, and is now spreading it on the internet, he has every right to do that, according to copyright. Your solution doesn't solve these problems. If you want to solve these problems, you can't use copyright.