5 ms·

Man it's a horrible issue here. I'm glad they're making progress but worried about adding some more 1st amendment exemptions. I can imagine this turning into a

Man it's a horrible issue here. I'm glad they're making progress but worried about adding some more 1st amendment exemptions. I can imagine this turning into a tool the powerful use to suppress "damaging information" or something along those lines. Maybe so long as it stays restricted to uncensored pictures of nudity things will go well.

mathgladiator 13y ago
I don't think this is a 1st amendment exception at all; I'm surprised laws around likeness rights (or even copyright) are not at play here.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck. Likeness rights are a bit weird and vary by state, but generally, they only apply to using a person's likeness to advertise or imply an endorsement of some product or service. That said, there are more privacy-centric laws in various states that might apply here. But those laws don't really draw clear lines in the way that likeness or copyright laws would. Instead, these privacy laws usually turn on whether the information being disclosed is "newsworthy" -- not exactly a very objective standard.
  - crag 13y ago
    "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck." Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. This is a very different situation. A jealous ex posting pictures he took of them all over the net. This girl had the right to expect those pictures to remain private. If he broke the law is debatable. But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.
    - andrewfong 13y ago
      > Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html: """The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.""" Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement. > But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk. Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Yes, I wrote about this the last time this topic came up here. There is another guy who's life was destroyed by revenge porn, specifically the public sharing of private selfies. Even 2 years after the incident, Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener) is still being rejected from jobs (by voters) as a result of his actions. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moor... I don't see a reasonable way to shut down revenge porn - it's pretty clearly journalism, and not much different from hidden cam journalism or publicizing leaked documents.
- rpenm 13y ago
  "Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn serves the public interest. It targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize. Even state surveillance pretends to serve the public interest - Moore and his ilk make no such claim. The Weiner case is an arguable comparison. The character/judgment of a political leader is usually considered a question of public interest. And voters didn't reject him for the images - he was the leading mayoral candidate for a time. Only the 2013 scandal made Weiner seem irredeemably dishonest. If anything, Weiner benefited from the gender bias in these kinds of cases.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    "Public interest" is a very nebulous concept. For example, consider this news report which targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize: http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916 http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... Much like the report on Pax Dickinson, revenge porn is simply exposing the (completely legal) views and opinions of an individual typically employed in the private sector. And it's doing so in a way designed to cause others to dislike the individual being reporter on. Is the report on Pax Dickinson not journalism? (Hypothetically suppose the report was based on leaked emails rather than public tweets if you believe privacy plays a role.) Appealing to the public interest really seems like reaching to me. And somehow, I suspect that the next Carlos Danger will argue that his nude selfies don't serve the public interest and should therefore be censored.

mathgladiator 13y ago

I don't think this is a 1st amendment exception at all; I'm surprised laws around likeness rights (or even copyright) are not at play here.

andrewfong 13y ago
Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck. Likeness rights are a bit weird and vary by state, but generally, they only apply to using a person's likeness to advertise or imply an endorsement of some product or service. That said, there are more privacy-centric laws in various states that might apply here. But those laws don't really draw clear lines in the way that likeness or copyright laws would. Instead, these privacy laws usually turn on whether the information being disclosed is "newsworthy" -- not exactly a very objective standard.
- crag 13y ago
  "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck." Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. This is a very different situation. A jealous ex posting pictures he took of them all over the net. This girl had the right to expect those pictures to remain private. If he broke the law is debatable. But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    > Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html: """The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.""" Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement. > But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk. Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Yes, I wrote about this the last time this topic came up here. There is another guy who's life was destroyed by revenge porn, specifically the public sharing of private selfies. Even 2 years after the incident, Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener) is still being rejected from jobs (by voters) as a result of his actions. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moor... I don't see a reasonable way to shut down revenge porn - it's pretty clearly journalism, and not much different from hidden cam journalism or publicizing leaked documents.

rpenm 13y ago
"Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn serves the public interest. It targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize. Even state surveillance pretends to serve the public interest - Moore and his ilk make no such claim. The Weiner case is an arguable comparison. The character/judgment of a political leader is usually considered a question of public interest. And voters didn't reject him for the images - he was the leading mayoral candidate for a time. Only the 2013 scandal made Weiner seem irredeemably dishonest. If anything, Weiner benefited from the gender bias in these kinds of cases.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  "Public interest" is a very nebulous concept. For example, consider this news report which targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize: http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916 http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... Much like the report on Pax Dickinson, revenge porn is simply exposing the (completely legal) views and opinions of an individual typically employed in the private sector. And it's doing so in a way designed to cause others to dislike the individual being reporter on. Is the report on Pax Dickinson not journalism? (Hypothetically suppose the report was based on leaked emails rather than public tweets if you believe privacy plays a role.) Appealing to the public interest really seems like reaching to me. And somehow, I suspect that the next Carlos Danger will argue that his nude selfies don't serve the public interest and should therefore be censored.