Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'

Posted by Soulskill on from the think-before-you-take-pictures dept.

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."

41 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. How about by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't do it :(

    2. Re:How about by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:How about by UppercaseM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    6. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. Re:How about by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't do it :(

      I did it before I got married :(

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:How about by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      '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.

    9. Re:How about by UppercaseM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:How about by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:How about by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can replace girls with people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:How about by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    15. Re:How about by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    16. Re:How about by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    17. Re:How about by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    18. Re:How about by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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.

    19. Re:How about by Sabriel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

    20. Re:How about by causality · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    21. Re:How about by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Rhapsody in Numbers
    22. Re:How about by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      '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.

    23. Re:How about by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:How about by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      '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.

    25. Re:How about by Alomex · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

  2. So... can they do it pre-breakup? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by javajawa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --

      Meh

    2. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Yeah, that'll do it by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  5. Re:Better late than never... by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Intent is the key word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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...

  7. Re:Ownership by UppercaseM · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Four rules to live by by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  9. Re:This law is to prtect Republicans. by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  10. Re:So it is OK if girls do it by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank