5 ms·

I don't see this as a free speech issue. If you want to put a website with pictures of yourself naked, that's fine by me. You do not get to make that decision o

by billpg 13y ago

I don't see this as a free speech issue. If you want to put a website with pictures of yourself naked, that's fine by me. You do not get to make that decision on my behalf.

adamors 13y ago
Exactly! What people forget is that most of this "user generated" content is being uploaded without the consent of the persons in the pictures.
- chilldream 13y ago
  One interesting angle some people have taken in the absence of RP-specific laws is to make copyright claims (since a lot of the pictures are either outright stolen, or self-taken and then later uploaded by angry exes)
josephlord 13y ago
That doesn't make it not a free speech issue. It is a free speech issue but one that we come down on the restricted speech side of things. It is just that it one of the issues that illustrates that some limits on free speech are appropriate and correct. Once that is acknowledged the tricky discussion of where that line should be and how it should enforced come into play.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Is it not copyright infringement? You post my pictures without my consent, I send a takedown notice, you refuse, I call the FBI.
  - tseabrooks 13y ago
    Serious question. If you consent today to let me take pictures of you nude... Don't I own the copyright of those pictures? Now, presumably if you and I were dating your consent would be very casual... I'd say, "Hey, mind if I snap some photos" and you'd say, "Go right ahead"... Because I'm quite charming. A year later I still have these photos and we're not dating any longer. Do I own copyright on photos as the photographer? How far does your casual consent go? Do I need formal consent saying I can reproduce them? A photo journalist will take a photo of a couple in the park as a child plays in the fountain behind them and use it in the paper the next day. What consent do they need to get from those being photographed? It just all feels very fuzzy. Presumably most of the nude pictures are taken by someone other than the subject of the photos... meaning the photographer owns the copyright.. I'd think. Anyone have more info on how this actually plays out?
    - adamors 13y ago
      I don't think it's that fuzzy, because even if you gave consent at one point to be photographed naked, that doesn't mean that the person having access to the photos can do anything they want with them. I mean it's one thing to send a nude pic in a sext and it's another to upload the pic to the internet with all your personal information. There was a great interview about this last year in a Canadian radio show: http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/06/13/end-revenge-porn/ http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/06/13/end-revenge-porn/
      - tseabrooks 13y ago
        But... Isn't this why it's legal for "Topless sunbathing photo of celebrity" to show up in the enquirer? They were topless in a public area (Sunbathing on a boat, for instance) and a photographer snapped a photo? I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin here. It's really unclear to me if revenge porn sites are illegal or just a really asshole thing to do. Also, In the example you're using... someone sent a sext and that means they were the original photographer, so they own the copyright. It sounds like there are two different types of photos here. I took a photo of you because you said I could - I own the copyright and can reproduce. You took a photo of yourself and sent it to me - You're the original photographer, I have no rights to the photo and can't share or reproduce.
    - girvo 13y ago
      The law surrounding the intersection of copyright, photography, and the internet (with user generated content and Safe Harbour thrown in for good measure) is indeed fuzzy. Honestly, I don't know whether there exists any hard and fast rules per se. When you have so many laws together and sometimes in conflict with one another... I don't know. It's difficult.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      I believe that the photographer owns the copyright. There might however be obligations owed by the photographer to the model in such a scenario. I imagine that it could be deemed a 'breach of confidence'[1] and there may be specific privacy laws in some jurisdictions. Also for this specific case of nude pictures I imagine you could quite quickly get into harassment/cyberstalking territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...
  - icebraining 13y ago
    In general, copyright belongs to the photographer. The person in the photo might have image/personality rights, depending on the jurisdiction (there's no Berne Convention on image rights) - in the US, the law varies state by state. Which means that if you're going to have naked pictures taken, it's best to do selfies than having someone take it for you :)
    - tseabrooks 13y ago
      I responded with something similar above. This was my understanding of the various laws (For some / most states).
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Copyright enforcement is also a free speech issue. The fair user/dealing provisions are an attempt at balancing the rights.
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    IIRC the rationalization he used was that the person who uploaded the photos, not the subject, was the copyright holder because they were the photographer, thus there was no copyright infringement. I don't know how he verified that, if at all. Now, hacking into email accounts and stealing photos is another matter...
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      Let's not pretend that he cared at all about rationalization. A request to take down a picture that you clearly owned copyright on (i.e. camera and mirror) would usually result in you being ridiculed on the front page of the site, with requests to other users to find more photos of you, where you lived and worked and to harass you.
throwaway092834 13y ago
Certainly it's a free speech issue if I took the picture of you, because you were naked in front of me?

by billpg 13y ago

I don't see this as a free speech issue. If you want to put a website with pictures of yourself naked, that's fine by me. You do not get to make that decision on my behalf.

adamors 13y ago

Exactly! What people forget is that most of this "user generated" content is being uploaded without the consent of the persons in the pictures.

chilldream 13y ago
One interesting angle some people have taken in the absence of RP-specific laws is to make copyright claims (since a lot of the pictures are either outright stolen, or self-taken and then later uploaded by angry exes)

josephlord 13y ago

That doesn't make it not a free speech issue. It is a free speech issue but one that we come down on the restricted speech side of things. It is just that it one of the issues that illustrates that some limits on free speech are appropriate and correct. Once that is acknowledged the tricky discussion of where that line should be and how it should enforced come into play.

IgorPartola 13y ago
Is it not copyright infringement? You post my pictures without my consent, I send a takedown notice, you refuse, I call the FBI.
- tseabrooks 13y ago
  Serious question. If you consent today to let me take pictures of you nude... Don't I own the copyright of those pictures? Now, presumably if you and I were dating your consent would be very casual... I'd say, "Hey, mind if I snap some photos" and you'd say, "Go right ahead"... Because I'm quite charming. A year later I still have these photos and we're not dating any longer. Do I own copyright on photos as the photographer? How far does your casual consent go? Do I need formal consent saying I can reproduce them? A photo journalist will take a photo of a couple in the park as a child plays in the fountain behind them and use it in the paper the next day. What consent do they need to get from those being photographed? It just all feels very fuzzy. Presumably most of the nude pictures are taken by someone other than the subject of the photos... meaning the photographer owns the copyright.. I'd think. Anyone have more info on how this actually plays out?
  - adamors 13y ago
    I don't think it's that fuzzy, because even if you gave consent at one point to be photographed naked, that doesn't mean that the person having access to the photos can do anything they want with them. I mean it's one thing to send a nude pic in a sext and it's another to upload the pic to the internet with all your personal information. There was a great interview about this last year in a Canadian radio show: http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/06/13/end-revenge-porn/ http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/06/13/end-revenge-porn/
    - tseabrooks 13y ago
      But... Isn't this why it's legal for "Topless sunbathing photo of celebrity" to show up in the enquirer? They were topless in a public area (Sunbathing on a boat, for instance) and a photographer snapped a photo? I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin here. It's really unclear to me if revenge porn sites are illegal or just a really asshole thing to do. Also, In the example you're using... someone sent a sext and that means they were the original photographer, so they own the copyright. It sounds like there are two different types of photos here. I took a photo of you because you said I could - I own the copyright and can reproduce. You took a photo of yourself and sent it to me - You're the original photographer, I have no rights to the photo and can't share or reproduce.
  - girvo 13y ago
    The law surrounding the intersection of copyright, photography, and the internet (with user generated content and Safe Harbour thrown in for good measure) is indeed fuzzy. Honestly, I don't know whether there exists any hard and fast rules per se. When you have so many laws together and sometimes in conflict with one another... I don't know. It's difficult.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I believe that the photographer owns the copyright. There might however be obligations owed by the photographer to the model in such a scenario. I imagine that it could be deemed a 'breach of confidence'[1] and there may be specific privacy laws in some jurisdictions. Also for this specific case of nude pictures I imagine you could quite quickly get into harassment/cyberstalking territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence_in_Englis...
- icebraining 13y ago
  In general, copyright belongs to the photographer. The person in the photo might have image/personality rights, depending on the jurisdiction (there's no Berne Convention on image rights) - in the US, the law varies state by state. Which means that if you're going to have naked pictures taken, it's best to do selfies than having someone take it for you :)
  - tseabrooks 13y ago
    I responded with something similar above. This was my understanding of the various laws (For some / most states).
- josephlord 13y ago
  Copyright enforcement is also a free speech issue. The fair user/dealing provisions are an attempt at balancing the rights.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  IIRC the rationalization he used was that the person who uploaded the photos, not the subject, was the copyright holder because they were the photographer, thus there was no copyright infringement. I don't know how he verified that, if at all. Now, hacking into email accounts and stealing photos is another matter...
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    Let's not pretend that he cared at all about rationalization. A request to take down a picture that you clearly owned copyright on (i.e. camera and mirror) would usually result in you being ridiculed on the front page of the site, with requests to other users to find more photos of you, where you lived and worked and to harass you.

throwaway092834 13y ago

Certainly it's a free speech issue if I took the picture of you, because you were naked in front of me?