4 ms·

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content witho

by yunohn 6y ago

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.

gumby 6y ago
> Why would anyone think otherwise? The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent. Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.
- yunohn 6y ago
  Fair enough. I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Yeah, anyone doing this, even if they believe it to be legal, must know they are doing wrong.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 6y ago
>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window). Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.
- yunohn 6y ago
  The quote was from the article. Regardless, I’m not fully aware of the applicable laws here. But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content. If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic". Nudity does not necessarily constitute pornography, else any R-rated movie would qualify. The "image and likeness" standard applies if there is some form of apparent endorsement. If I see Paris Hilton at the gas station I am allowed to snap her picture and sell it to the tabloids. I might blur out the gas station's logo before her face. Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why would anyone think otherwise? Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.

by yunohn 6y ago

gumby 6y ago

> Why would anyone think otherwise? The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent. Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.

yunohn 6y ago
Fair enough. I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
- gumby 6y ago
  Yeah, anyone doing this, even if they believe it to be legal, must know they are doing wrong.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sandworm101 6y ago

>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window). Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.

yunohn 6y ago
The quote was from the article. Regardless, I’m not fully aware of the applicable laws here. But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content. If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic". Nudity does not necessarily constitute pornography, else any R-rated movie would qualify. The "image and likeness" standard applies if there is some form of apparent endorsement. If I see Paris Hilton at the gas station I am allowed to snap her picture and sell it to the tabloids. I might blur out the gas station's logo before her face. Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Why would anyone think otherwise? Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.