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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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.