7 ms·

I would agree except for a few things. Like, if someone distributes pornography of themselves, and they are now a nurse or something and are out of the industr

I would agree except for a few things. Like, if someone distributes pornography of themselves, and they are now a nurse or something and are out of the industry + don't want their images distributed anymore, I think distributing pornography of them against their permission just because they aren't distributing it themselves sounds extremely heinous.

lamontcg 3y ago
That could be handled through entirely non-voidable personality/likeness rights instead of needing to be handled through copyright law.
- sneak 3y ago
  As a photographer, I think I and I alone should be able to dictate what happens to the photos that I take. The idea that you can somehow control your image is insane. You can't forcibly control your reputation, why should you be able to forcibly control photographers who legally photograph you?
  - the-smug-one 3y ago
    I don't think it's insane. We can control our reputation slightly, through libel laws.
    - sneak 3y ago
      In the US, being factually accurate is an airtight defense against libel. Face it, you don't get to control what other people say about you, nor should you want to. (Whether that "saying" is gossip, in print, or photoshopping your face on to unsavory things.)
      - the-smug-one 3y ago
        In Sweden, it's not. I do think that it's reasonable to have certain expectations about what can be spread about you as a private person, regardless if the things said are true or not.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I agree but only if you have a consent form of the persons depicted of course. And the state of mind is important too. I help at kink events sometimes and I don't accept consent forms from drunk people and don't get them photographed. Unless I know they've agreed to it before.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      >I agree but only if you have a consent form of the persons depicted of course. How many of the millions of published photos of recognizable people on the internet do you think have consent forms. Stock photos yes. But I'd be willing to bet that well short of 1% of the photos of people on Flickr, say, have consent forms.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        Well yes, but in the environment I would take photos this is a much bigger concern obviously. I know even there not every photographer takes a form. But they always ask for consent verbally. I wouldn't run the risk without it personally. Especially in the kink community where consent is paramount and forms are already an established method for other activities as well. I know flickr etc is not so strict on consent but I personally would be. Especially when it involves anything remotely risqué. The thing is that people change and societal values change over time. It's better to have that consent when someone changes their mind and blames you.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Your idea of somehow "dictating" what happens to the photos you take is equally insane if not more so. Your photos are just bits, information. Trivially copied. For you to be able to "dictate" literally anything at all would require control over the computer I'm typing this comment on and every other computer on earth.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Privacy rights are a thing, and they should be. > For you to be able to "dictate" literally anything at all would require control over the computer I'm typing this comment on and every other computer on earth. Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Privacy rights are about stopping information from coming into existence in the first place. We want corporations to not collect data about us at all. Copyright is about controlling distribution of information that already exists and has already been published. It's complete nonsense in the age of information. > Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer. Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website.
        kube-system 3y ago
        There are other ways that privacy rights are enforced, but the right to not distribute a creative work (and prevent others from doing it) is also a right that people have under copyright, and I believe they should continue to have. > Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website. Correct, I am not. I am saying that most places around the world do dictate what he does with a computer already, and legal systems don't need a technical solution to enable it. The fact that nobody can electronically prevent them from copying bits is irrelevant. We are discussing the law, and courts use prisons, not bits.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  True, copyright is purely about monetization. And in fact it doesn't even help in most cases around professional pornography because the actor is not the copyright holder. The studio is. It's a difficult topic. Unlike revenge porn which is completely against consent, the actor has signed their distribution rights away. It's really something they should think of very carefully before doing. And in the cases of porn actors gone mainstream (Sylvester Stallone and Sasha Grey come to mind) it's not really been a big problem for them.
zirgs 3y ago
What if some actor no longer wants a movie where they're portraying the main character to be distributed? Should they be allowed to do that? Should the studio be forced to stop its distribution or edit the actor out of the scenes that they appear in?

lamontcg 3y ago

That could be handled through entirely non-voidable personality/likeness rights instead of needing to be handled through copyright law.

sneak 3y ago
As a photographer, I think I and I alone should be able to dictate what happens to the photos that I take. The idea that you can somehow control your image is insane. You can't forcibly control your reputation, why should you be able to forcibly control photographers who legally photograph you?
- the-smug-one 3y ago
  I don't think it's insane. We can control our reputation slightly, through libel laws.
  - sneak 3y ago
    In the US, being factually accurate is an airtight defense against libel. Face it, you don't get to control what other people say about you, nor should you want to. (Whether that "saying" is gossip, in print, or photoshopping your face on to unsavory things.)
    - the-smug-one 3y ago
      In Sweden, it's not. I do think that it's reasonable to have certain expectations about what can be spread about you as a private person, regardless if the things said are true or not.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I agree but only if you have a consent form of the persons depicted of course. And the state of mind is important too. I help at kink events sometimes and I don't accept consent forms from drunk people and don't get them photographed. Unless I know they've agreed to it before.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >I agree but only if you have a consent form of the persons depicted of course. How many of the millions of published photos of recognizable people on the internet do you think have consent forms. Stock photos yes. But I'd be willing to bet that well short of 1% of the photos of people on Flickr, say, have consent forms.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Well yes, but in the environment I would take photos this is a much bigger concern obviously. I know even there not every photographer takes a form. But they always ask for consent verbally. I wouldn't run the risk without it personally. Especially in the kink community where consent is paramount and forms are already an established method for other activities as well. I know flickr etc is not so strict on consent but I personally would be. Especially when it involves anything remotely risqué. The thing is that people change and societal values change over time. It's better to have that consent when someone changes their mind and blames you.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Your idea of somehow "dictating" what happens to the photos you take is equally insane if not more so. Your photos are just bits, information. Trivially copied. For you to be able to "dictate" literally anything at all would require control over the computer I'm typing this comment on and every other computer on earth.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Privacy rights are a thing, and they should be. > For you to be able to "dictate" literally anything at all would require control over the computer I'm typing this comment on and every other computer on earth. Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Privacy rights are about stopping information from coming into existence in the first place. We want corporations to not collect data about us at all. Copyright is about controlling distribution of information that already exists and has already been published. It's complete nonsense in the age of information. > Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer. Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        There are other ways that privacy rights are enforced, but the right to not distribute a creative work (and prevent others from doing it) is also a right that people have under copyright, and I believe they should continue to have. > Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website. Correct, I am not. I am saying that most places around the world do dictate what he does with a computer already, and legal systems don't need a technical solution to enable it. The fact that nobody can electronically prevent them from copying bits is irrelevant. We are discussing the law, and courts use prisons, not bits.
wkat4242 3y ago
True, copyright is purely about monetization. And in fact it doesn't even help in most cases around professional pornography because the actor is not the copyright holder. The studio is. It's a difficult topic. Unlike revenge porn which is completely against consent, the actor has signed their distribution rights away. It's really something they should think of very carefully before doing. And in the cases of porn actors gone mainstream (Sylvester Stallone and Sasha Grey come to mind) it's not really been a big problem for them.

zirgs 3y ago

What if some actor no longer wants a movie where they're portraying the main character to be distributed? Should they be allowed to do that? Should the studio be forced to stop its distribution or edit the actor out of the scenes that they appear in?