California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'

coondoggie writes "Call it a modern day love story: Boy meets girl; they 'like' each other; they privately sext naked pics of each other to celebrate; girl loses interest, breaks it off; guy responds by posting previously private pics to Internet site specializing in revenge; girl has little recourse, suffers much humiliation, ridicule. There is a lot of pressure to change the outcome of such wretched stories, which seem to be pervasive these days. Some relief is on the way the way, at least in California, where this week the governor signed one of the nation's first laws making so-called 'revenge porn' illegal. Specifically, the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly."

Comments

How about

[geekoid]

we accept people get naked and do fun things?
That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

TO Be Clear: IT's a horrible, rude, dhouch beg, jack ass movie to put that private stuff on the internet. I"m not siding with those assholes. It would just be nice that instead of going 'OMG she does what I do, but now its in a picture!' to 'So what, everyone does it, lets get the asshole that distribute the picture.'

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't do it :(

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is people don't want pictures of themselves naked on the net. It isn't a problem of having people know you got naked and had sex. Most people are ok with that.

Re:How about

[cayenne8]

How about an old but tried and true method to avoid this.

Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

Geez, when did people get so fucking boneheaded about this. Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

Not that anything about good sex is shameful, but c'mon, use a little common sense...if you let someone in this day in age make some homemade pr0n with you featured as the star....especially a chick, you will eventually be broadcast to the world with a dick in your mouth.

Seriously, when did people become brain dead about stuff like this, especially in this day in age?

Re: How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. I'm not bright enough to stop people taking pictures of me naked (inc myself), so let's make up another law .. We don't have enough already.
This will also reenforce some other policies, like ... If you take a family photo and I'm walking in the background, I can sue you for copying my likeness without permission.

More boneheaded "I'm not responsible for my own actions" policies please.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world was suddenly a better person.

Unfortunately this is not going to happen in the short term.

So should we not act to rectify the situation in the immediate while we hold out for the ideal? Are you suggesting that the law should not actually be enacted?

Sometimes practical realities eclipse ideals.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

Back in those days, photos were taken on photographic film which had to be developed, and in 99.9% of cases by someone not taking the photo or in the photo. Therefore, someone else would see the nudey.

Machines were invented for developing consumer photographic films but still they would be inspected by humans for quality control. They get to see the nudey.

In some countries, like the UK, with strict, old-fashioned prurient laws about the nudey, pictures of boobs and front-bottoms (male and female) could land you in jail with a conviction as a sexual pervert.

So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare.

Re:How about

[UppercaseM]

Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realize that we already have laws on the books to handle situations where no consent was given, right?

Re:How about

[PopeRatzo]

I don't do it :(

I did it before I got married :(

Re:How about

[vux984]

'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.

Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.

If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.

Re:How about

[UppercaseM]

Yes, but consent can be a difficult thing to prove or disprove. This gives people an additional angle to ensure that their right to privacy is respected.

And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

we accept people get naked and do fun things?
That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

We live in a sex-obsessed culture.
Part of what gives sex value is the difficulty in obtaining it.
Part of a person's value is the right to have sex with that person, which is given only at some cost.
Part of the value of sex with this person is the rarity of it. Few have had sex with this person.
Nudity and naked pictures are a part of the sexual process and its value. Only those who have sex with this person can see this person naked.
This person gave the right to have sex with her to one person.
Now everyone can engage in the seeing-naked part of the sexual process with her. This part is no longer rare.
Others will assume that she's a trollop, greatly depreciating her sexual value since it is commonly available.
Embarrassment is knowledge of others' diminished opinions of one.
-> Embarrassment

Social games are social games. An exploit has been patched.

Re:How about

[TsuruchiBrian]

Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?

As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.

Re:How about

[geekoid]

You can replace girls with people.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

You (and the original AC) are forgetting the Polaroid instant camera. They weren't purchased for the quality of the pictures or the low price of the film.

Now get off my king-sized water bed.

Re:How about

[YttriumOxide]

"So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare."

They weren't "very rare". They were just mainly confined to those who had their own darkrooms.

Or anyone who had one of these...

Re:How about

[causality]

Never nudes.

See, that would require having good judgment and putting a thought or two towards contingency. This was once considered the norm for adults and those adults who failed to do it were seen as failing to achieve what was expected of them, whether involving photography or anything else. Now it's increasingly treated like some terribly unreasonable standard. Folks, this is a movement in the wrong direction.

It's the never-ending governmental quest to protect adult people from the consequences of their own poor judgment. I don't believe many people recognize how dangerous this actually is, how much of a step backwards it represents, and how many similarly-spirited steps we've taken in the last decade or two. All the short-sighted see is what's in front of them, yeah a guy publicized photos he was trusted not to publicize, yeah he's an asshole, sure. We're going to stop being adults now because of excuses like this?

I will never end up in such a situation, but if I somehow did, I'd chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned. Do stupid thing -> suffer stupid consequence, seems like everything's in order to me. I'm not a victim if I actively contributed to the unpleasant situation I'm in that couldn't have happened without my said contribution. So, who finds that offensive (code for "makes my lack of personal responsibility uncomfortable") and thinks I care?

Re:How about

[WaywardGeek]

It's nice to see some politicians passing a law that may actually help a few people...

Re:How about

[causality]

You can replace girls with people.

Yes but that would eliminate the emotional angle of an implied "poor females victimized by those nasty brutish men". Absent that, the speaker would be left with nothing to fall back on except to make a reasonable argument. Clearly you see the problem.

Good catch.

Re:How about

[nospam007]

"Yes, but consent can be a difficult thing to prove or disprove. This gives people an additional angle to ensure that their right to privacy is respected."

That's why I always film the consent and the resulting sex.

Re:How about

[Sabriel]

It's the difference between hearsay ("Susan told me Tom was in town") and testimony ("I saw Tom in town").

Also known as, "pics or it didn't happen".

And when it comes to pics on the internet, it can also be the difference between "I wouldn't want to see that" and "oh god no, I can't un-see that".

Re:How about

[causality]

It's not the purpose of law to prevent adult people from doing stupid things. Attempting to circumvent this produces laws that are unreasonable (like this) and laws that are unenforcable without a total police state (like the War on Drugs).

And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.

So was the naive decision (of the photographed person) to trust someone who should not have been trusted. If we agree that private things should remain private, there is no reason why this should be an exception.

Re:How about

[causality]

Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?

As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.

Because politicians love the meme of the innocent maiden victimized by nasty brutish men, so long as the politicians get to be the knights in shining armor.

Or the hard-working black man kept down by mean ol' racist Whitey. Or whatever -- any division will work. So long as it divides people into group identities and requires a savior, it will become a political issue.

It's not a very funny joke, but the joke is that so many people really think the legislators voting for this give a flying fuck about women who demonstrate poor judgment and can't differentiate a man who has honor and a man who does not (and don't think that matters, until something like this happens). Or anyone else. Or anything other than money and power, for that matter.

Re:How about

[the phantom]

Which the original poster addressed by noting that in the case of "sexting" the model is usually the photographer, therefore the owner of the copyright. The rest of his post followed from that assumption.

Re:How about

[vux984]

Copyright belongs to the author, who may or may not be the subject.

The subject of a photo also has rights over the image.

If the photographer is not the subject, and if the subject is a particular person or 'model', that person needs to sign a 'model release' before the photographer can publish it to a commercial website.

Re:How about

[theqmann]

Ah, but in these cases, consent was probably given to take the pictures, but later retroactively revoked. This law makes the retroactive revocation of consent legal.

Re:How about

[Theaetetus]

'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.

Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.

If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.

I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership), but there's a counterpoint: these photos are not intended for distribution or sale, and so the actual damages for illegally distributing them is going to be (a) negligible, and (b) nigh-impossible to prove.
"But wait," you say. "What about statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement? Surely, that's a better fit here (and a more apt punishment) than the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases!"
And you're absolutely right... except that to get statutory damages, you have to register your copyright.
By sending a copy to the Library of Congress.
Where it is publicly archived and available.
Your intimate sex picture.
That you're suing over because you don't want it publicly available.

Dang.
Nonetheless, once it's published on a revenge-porn site, the damage has already been done, so someone wise could quickly register their copyright (you have 3 months from first publication) and then (a) file a DMCA takedown to get it removed, with huge penalties if they don't, and (b) file suit for statutory damages for willful infringement against the ex who stole it.

Re:How about

[Solandri]

When I was in jr. high (1981), one day the girls were passing around a polaroid of the naked lower torso of one of the guys (no face so you couldn't identify him). I never got the story straight if he did it willingly for the thrill of publicly exposing himself while being able to hide his identity, or if the other guys had pulled down his pants and underwear and snapped a picture before he could react.

In a modern context, I suppose all the girls in my class would've been busted for distributing child porn.

Re:How about

[TsuruchiBrian]

You can lie with pictures as well (e.g. photoshop).

My point is that there is lots of embarrassing stuff traded between people during a relationship. Why should it be that only photographic secrets are now protected?

I don't want the government to get into this domain, because there is either going to be severe overreach and/or a severe consistency problem.

Sure we ave video and photographs specifically referenced. What about audio files, text messages, emails, love letters, verbal secrets, etc. I can totally see this becoming a lawyers paradise with all the new litigation opportunities. And in the end, what will we have really accomplished? Will women finally really be able to pose for nude pictures without fear of future shaming? No.

The real problem is that society shames women, or rather that women allow themselves to be shamed, for posing for nude pictures. We may as well make a law that criminalizes the hurting of people's feelings.

Re:How about

[Soporific]

I wonder if Anthony Weiner's wiener pic would end up violating this law. Didn't the girl release it?

~S

Re:How about

[chad_r]

In addition to the copyright issues (which I think the parent is correct about), what about the 2257 Regulations issues? The laws in the US are pretty strict about full records being kept of the models in pornographic videos by the producers. It would seem these revenge sites are sitting ducks for child porn smackdowns.

Re:How about

[Guppy]

Tell that to a wedding photographer. The prints you get do not come with permission to copy them and send them to everyone you know, whether for money or not.

That's actually a good point. Before hiring a wedding photographer always make sure to clarify what rights each party has to the pictures taken -- in writing -- and don't hire anyone who isn't willing to make some compromises (even if you have to pay a little extra and search a little harder). You have plenty of negotiating leverage before the wedding occurs, but not afterwards.

Re:How about

[DRJlaw]

'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership)...

That's funny, since I'm an IP attorney, and I would never let anyone get away with the statement that "'revenge porn' is nearly always [a] copyright violation." The photographer or videographer will frequently be the partner rather than the subject, in which case a civil suit for copyright infringement is going to go exactly nowhere.

To be clear: (1) The copyright is held by the photographer; (2) The copyright in the photograph cannot be assigned except through a written instrument; and (3) in these situations the court typically cannot order such a transfer. 17 USC 201(e). If you didn't set up the camera or take the photo yourself, there is very little chance that you will be able to use copyright law to address the problem.

And never forget the ultimate problem -- anything posted on the internet will remain on the internet (through some service and at some location) essentially forever.

Re:How about

[Alomex]

Hi honey,

This is me, your SO. Just a note to let you know that while you were posting this, I emptied your apartment using the spare key you gave me. I was not going to tell you that it was me who did it, but since you've explained to the rest of your fellow /.ers that you are an adult and you would simply "chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned" I'm going ahead and telling you this.

Cheerio

Your sweet honey buns

Re:How about

[u38cg]

What the hell? No, it's really fucking obvious that she didn't consent to having them broadcast on the net. Really fucking obvious.

Re:How about

[Joce640k]

Never nudes.

See, that would require having good judgment and putting a thought or two towards contingency.

Nope. It would require a magic sixth sense that lets you know that the apparently trustworthy person you're with won't turn into a total asswipe six months from now. To date, there's no known method.

It also requires that none of his buddies will 'borrow' his cellphone when he's asleep/drunk and that he's incapable of hiding a cellphone in a place where you might be naked, or even just surprising you in the shower.

etc.

Short version: Life isn't the perfect little utopia you were imagining when you said that.

So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[MetalliQaZ]

What a strange time we live in.

First, that the government needs to go stick it's nose into business like this. Second that people feel they deserve privacy for pictures they send to third parties unencumbered by any business contract or doctor/lawyer privilege. Who exactly gets to determine when a disclosure of photographs is or is not allowed? Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account? What about when someone changes their mind? What about when pictures are taken by a the second party? What about by a third party?

Strange.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[javajawa]

Well... without a contract... that third party does not have copyright of the image... what business does the third party have in distributing those photos, in the first place?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[Teun]

You will understand once it happens to you.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[fredprado]

Depends. Did he take the picture? If so he does have the copyright.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[omnichad]

But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[tylikcat]

Though considering that society tends to heap a lot more scorn and abuse on women so exposed than men, maybe not.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[Obfuscant]

You will understand once it happens to you.

It will never happen to me because I set the bar for sending naked pictures of myself to someone a bit higher than "like". As in, "it's stupid to do that, whatever emotional attachment you think will be created by doing it is not worth having, and it could turn out badly when they get tired of liking me, which they will, because they clearly only like me because I sent them a naked picture."

If you decide to make friends "love" you by sending dirty pictures to them, then you made a bad decision and as an adult you shouldn't be protected from yourself by the nanny state.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[cayenne8]

You will understand once it happens to you.

If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.

For goodness sakes...try to cultivate at least a couple of healthy brain cells, and use them, eh?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[cayenne8]

That's why you can't go around taking pictures of strangers and put them on the internet.

I dunno where you live, but it is perfectly legal for me to stand in a public place, take pictures and publish them on the web....have you not seen everyone post their tourist pics on FB or flickr or other websites? You've not see websites of people showing off their street photography?

If it is editorial in nature, you can feel quite free to sell those images too, like to news agencies without any form of release.

But I posit to you, at least in the US, you are perfectly ok to take pictures of folks out on the public streets and put those images on the internet.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[icebike]

Not exactly true. Otherwise, posting any picture on the net would be illegal.
Its almost impossible to take a picture in any city and not have at least one person appear in it.

There is only an expectation of a release if your photo will be used as an endorsement or an advertisement.
I've appeared in hundreds of news photos, sports photos (due to having great seats close to the action).

I appear on several people's facebook pages even though I have no facebook account. If you step outside
your home, you are fair game.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[mypalmike]

The rule of law is, at its core, a way to protect one party's rights against the actions of another party. Government is the messy system we have devised to enforce said rules. This is clearly a case where one party's reasonable expectation of privacy is violated by the actions of another party. In particular, consider homemade sex videos made by a couple which are later distributed by an angry ex. Law or no law, people are going to sue.

This sort of "revenge porn" apparently happens often enough with current technology that citizens have started to use their democratic powers to push for laws indicating what behavior is a violation of others rights with regard to sexual images. Fortunately, as a democracy, we are a government of the people, which is why "government is sticking its[sic] nose into business like this."

As you have pointed out, extenuating circumstances may exist which make the law subject to interpretation. Guilt may be difficult to determine. That's not a new problem - all law is subject to interpretation. Property lines, who punched who first, etc. It's all a mess which fails algorithmic decomposition. Fortunately there are courts specifically designed to handle this sort of thing.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

100% Wrong. Not only in regards to how copyright law works in terms of distribution rights, but also in terms of who owns the image. The short (somewhat overly simplified) answer is- you didn't put a copyright notice on the image and you didn't register it, so the second it was distributed you gave up all rights to control it.

As for the story, this is a typical bullshit California-style law.
You can already file a civil case against someone who did this under defamation, slander, or libel laws.
All this law really does is make it carry a misdemeanor criminal penalty of "disorderly conduct", IF and only if the local Prosecutor wants to spend the money to pursue a case. It still requires the victim (or the prosecution) to prove they were actually damaged, prove that there WAS an existing agreement with the person to keep the image private, and prove that the motive was revenge. In fact, under criminal prosecution it would be MORE difficult to get a 'guilty' verdict than it would be for the victim to win a judgement in a civil case, and in almost all situations the defense would be able to get such a charge dismissed outright.

So despite what the "women's advocacy groups" claim, this really doesn't do anybody any good in the end. It just makes the law more complicated, and lets some politicians brag about "defending women".

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[geekoid]

becasue one is a civil law, the other is not.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[QRDeNameland]

Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account?

After reading the bill's summary, I'm not sure how this law could ever be enforced, mostly due to issue of intent.

They readily admit that they can't generally identify who posted the pics/vids to such sites. If you can't even establish who posted it, how can you determine their intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless you can prove that the person who took the pic/vid in fact posted it, anyone charged could reasonably claim someone else was able to access the pic/vid from their phone/computer and uploaded it without either party's consent. And if you can prove the person uploaded it and establish their intent, then it seems to me you don't need this law to at least be able to (excuse the phrase) sue the pants off them.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[causality]

It's about pictures the two of you took with mutual consent when all was great, I know Slashdotters aren't supposed to ever get in such a situation but it is quite common.

The sick part comes when after a break-up one of the partners posts them on the net out of revenge for the break-up.

When you date people who a) are not childish, and b) have a sense of honor, it protects you from pretty much all of these problems.

The sick part is that so many people think the government could ever be a substitute for cultivating a little wisdom.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[JesseMcDonald]

Assuming the images were uploaded anonymously, and that both parties had access, there is the further question of exactly which party is seeking revenge. It isn't beyond belief that someone might upload their own photos in an attempt to frame the person who just broke up with them.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup?

[ChrisMaple]

Do not confuse the value of having sex with the value of being filmed while having sex. The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged. Not properly evaluating those potential consequences is at least foolish and most likely stupid.

Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?

Revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell will they prove it's revenge? If you don't want naked pics of you posted on the internet, don't let him take pictures. This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of.

Re:Revenge?

[ThatAblaze]

That's just a marketing stunt to make crappy pictures a little more exciting. It bears very little resemblance to reality.

An alternative

[barlevg]

Why not just make it legal for the ex-gf to kick the guy in the balls?

Problem solved

[Lucas123]

Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

Re:Problem solved

[Farmer Tim]

In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

Good advice for Slashdotters. Nobody wants to see that.

Re:Problem solved

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I would say it worked out pretty well for her, since no one had any idea who she was before that stupid sex tape got "leaked".

Yeah, that'll do it

[operagost]

I can't imagine how they will prove intent or source in most cases. Hint: they won't. This will make the situation worse, with the legal system being used for false-flag blackmail of exes in revenge.

Re:Yeah, that'll do it

[UppercaseM]

I think that a major indicator would be where it was posted. Yougotposted vs a P2P porn upload. One shows malintent, where the other could be an honest mistake uploading a folder. I'm sure a lot has to do with whether or not they are willing to take the image down as well.

Re:Yeah, that'll do it

[CAIMLAS]

In other words, it'll be yet another bludgeon being able to be used in court against a husband (or father).

At least it might help hinder the Paparazzi.

everybody is naked under their clothes

[FudRucker]

hey girls and women: if you dont want some loser you dumped posting pics of you on the net then dont take nude pics of yourself,

people need to get over their hangups with nudity, and they need to understand there is a difference between nude photos and porn, (hint: its not porn until sexual activity is involved)

Re:everybody is naked under their clothes

[spire3661]

Some people would argue that the reaction it causes in the viewer is what makes porn 'porn' i.e. 'I know it when i see it'. Not me, i wouldnt argue that, but other people do.

Re:everybody is naked under their clothes

[SuricouRaven]

Or better yet, we could try to get over the collective obsession with naked bodies and who is mating with whome. We're acting like a bunch of over-evolved apes.

Re:Better late than never...

[omnichad]

What about this?
1. In a lot of these cases, the person who uploaded the picture to the revenge site did not take the picture. It was sent to them some time before. They do not own copyright to the image. It was already illegal in that case.

2. These sites are funded by advertising. Therefore, the images are being used in a commercial manner. Your likeness cannot be used for commercial purposes without your explicit consent. It was already illegal in this case, too.

So we're really just adding an almost-impossible-to-prove situation on top of things that are already illegal. The problem is and always has been that the person whose picture is posted doesn't know about it because they would never visit the site. So they don't find out until everyone else already knows about it.

Intent is the key word...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but judge, my intent was to impress my friends, potential girlfriends, etc. with the hotness of my ex. ...but judge, my intent was to let other guys know that such a hottie was now available, so that she might find a new boyfriend more easily. ...but judge, this photo is a work of art and thus protected by the first amendment.

etc...

Intent seems a high barrier to prove...

Re:Ownership

[UppercaseM]

Not if it was agreed to be kept private (oral contract...go ahead and snicker). Also, I don't think that many people on here are considering the fact many women have pictures taken of them that they are unaware of (drunk, sleeping, hidden cam, etc.), and the type of person that would take those kinds of pictures is the exact type of person that would post them.

Four rules to live by

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

1. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to your boss and your mother.
2. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your boss, and mother to read.
3. Don't take, or allow to be taken pictures you wouldn't show to your boss and mother.
4. Nothing is ever anonymous!

I live by them, and so should you.

Why does this only apply to naked exes?

[new death barbie]

Why should the law care about whether or not there has been a romantic relationship, or even if there's nudity?

How about, if you have pictures of another person, given with reasonable expectations that it was for your private use (i.e. you do not have any signed permission to the contrary), why not just make it illegal to make these public with intent to bully, defame, humiliate, or shame?

Celebrities and other people in the public eye excepted, as always, or half the entertainment industry would crash overnight.

Don't do it for revenge

[gmuslera]

If in 2008 the NSA people had no problem sharing the conversations of soldiers with their girlfriends between them just imagine how they would be sharing now whatever digital you take with your girlfriend now. So just label it "national security" instead of revenge and should be ok. Or stop taking any digital media that is not meant for sharing with other people, no matter how good or bad are going your relations with your girlfriend, with no privacy that is the first thing that will be misused.

Re:This law is to prtect Republicans.

[dcw3]

This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!

So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?

Who decides if it was "shaming"?

[dirk]

I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.

Re:This law is to prtect Republicans.

[Dr Damage I]

California State Assembly: 52 Democrats, 25 Republicans, 3 vacant
California State Senate:28 Democrat, 12 Republican

I'm thinking This legislature isn't passing laws to, and I quote, "protect Republicans and their "Perverted" ways"

Re:So it is OK if girls do it

[Daetrin]

You're right that sexism is involved, but you're entirely wrong about where it's occuring. Women almost never do this because our society is sexist about nudity. No one cares about male nudity unless the male in question is running for office. A nude picture of a man generally get a "boys will be boys" response and everyone forgetting about it shortly thereafter. A nude picture of a woman generally results in A: lots of males wanting to view it and B: lots of people calling the woman a slut or whore or something similar.

So even if both people in the relationship have nude pictures of each other the male is still in a position of strength. He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him.

have you seen pictures of your mom naked?

[jsepeta]

do you want to?

Re:So it is OK if girls do it

[Anonymous Coward]

" He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him."

      Wanna a bet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3SlGjIm4Jc

What he did wasn't illegal, what she did was. Funny how the part where she dumped him gets ignored. Men don't like being treated like shit anymore than women do and women often aren't any more angelic in their responses either. In this case, she was worse. Sexism works both ways. If he had decked her friend and caught up with her he'd be in jail even though she started the fight and brought a friend to assist. And it's highly likely a jury would convict him. Women may see more issues(ok, blown out of proportion issues) but the end responsibility and accountability is still placed on men in our society not women.

"Women almost never do this because our society is sexist about nudity. "
"So even if both people in the relationship have nude pictures of each other the male is still in a position of strength."

And if your girl friend makes fun of your sex life to all her girlfriends and they spread it around?
Men do the competing and women do the picking. There is no balance women have the upper hand.

Re:So it is OK if girls do it

[Anonymous Coward]

" He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him."

      She could accuse him of rape. Even manufacture evidence quite easily. He'll be arrested, tossed in jail, publicly humiliated on the front page, lose his job, etc, in most places on just the accusation. A guy accusing a woman of rape gets little more that the last page if anything and the short-shrift in law enforcement and that if he is believed at all. Fact is, sexism is everywhere, and both genders can treat each other badly. Deal. All this abusive law proves is freedom(free doom) is dead, long live the nanny state.