It's not a matter of me being too delicate, it's a matter of me being willing and able to call it as I see it. Did I say I was hurt by the attack? Nope.
Actually, yes it is. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has some say, but distribution rights lie with the photographer in all cases.
Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.
Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.
And here I am with my tail between my legs. Don't bother wasting your time replying to point out my own misunderstanding of the law; I've just made myself quite aware of this (ironically, as I no longer hold that misunderstanding).
Oh, I read it. And you're correct, libel is a subset of defamation, not all defamation must be libelous, but all libel must be defamatory. The information needn't even be provided out of context or in a false light, as you say; it need only be contrary to one's generally known character. There is no argument to be had, here; instead of just reading posts on Slashdot, go read up on the actual law.
You're confusing libel with defamation. Libel must be false, or believed by the person spreading it to be false. You can defame someone's character by making public some private piece of information about them, which is 100% completely factually accurate, which the general population of people who know that person would find to be out of character for them.
Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that perception of you, your character has been defamed.
And by consenting to being photographed, they're waiving some of those rights. Like the right to tell the photographer who they can share the photograph with.
It is not reasonable to expect everyone around you to be decent human beings. It should be, and ideally it would be, I know that's a world I'd like to live in. But that's not the world you and I live in; we live in reality, where we know there are people out there, a large number of them, who are not, and are probably not capable of being, decent human beings; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that of them.
You misunderstand the mechanics of the situation. By consenting to being photographed or recorded, you've already given the copyright owner (the photographer or videographer) the right to distribute their work, which is theirs; they own it, the law is clear on this point. In this case, a release form serves only as proof of your consent. Incidentally, release forms weren't initially used for this purpose (until people started claiming they had never consented to things they most certainly had), but were (and still are) used to secure that consent after a recording (for example, a news crew may interview several dozen people on the street and record each interview -- usually they state that the interview will not be aired without your consent, which puts that ball squarely in your court --, but only have the 3 or 4 people whose interviews they want to put on the air actually bother signing a release, and they would do so after the fact).
That's why it's called a release; you're releasing your consent after the fact. It's still called a release when it's done in advance, because it's the same form, but the simple act of consenting to the recording is enough, under the law; a release at that point is just ass-covering.
There are so many shades of gray here, there isn't enough time before the heat death of the universe to explain them all. Images of actual rape and actual murder actually as they're actually happening actually are illegal. The one exception, at least for rape (who's gonna charge the guy who was just unwittingly starred in a snuff file, anyway), is for the victim; he or she can and should do everything possible to record the act in order to use it as evidence after the fact.
Once you start talking about stealing, it can break down two ways; robbery, or burglary. Let's talk about robbery, because it involves physical interaction between the perpetrator and the victim; now you're filming an assault. That's also illegal.
Of course, with the recording of these acts, the law actually considers intent. That's why you don't get nailed for security camera footage, or for recording an event for evidence or to report it in the news.
There's a bit more nuance to it than I've described in this post, but I'm sure you can start developing the rest on your own.
That's reporting that it happened, not making it happen for the purpose of recording it. That's where the difference comes in. Find a way to graphically depict the sexual abuse of a child without filming or photographing the act in progress and I'll support your argument; until then, perhaps you need to learn to see shades of gray, there are more than 2.
If it's in your character and that character is generally known by those who know you, then your character is being upheld, not defamed, when porn of you is released. I never said it was alright for it to be released, just that it's not defamation of character. Furthermore, it is extremely irresponsible to expect any level of privacy when doing *anything* in front of a camera.
And who brought number of partners into this? 1, 2, 3, 20, the entire state of Rhode Island, it doesn't really matter; porn of you doing it being released without your permission is only defamation of your character if it's not generally known that it is in your character to do those kinds of things.
Your 3rd remark doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion.
When you make up your own arguments to argue against, though, it's pretty hard to lose, isn't it?
Most similar cases I'm aware of (just a handful, though there are many more out there) have been pretty cut and dry. The few instances where it's gone the other way were situations where the plaintiff's own friends were called as character witnesses and straight up called out the plaintiff as exactly the kind of person they'd expect to see in porn; in that case, posting porn would be supporting, rather than defaming, one's character, but those cases are, by far, the minority.
That is to say, unless you're such a slut or manwhore that your own friends will attest to that fact under oath, you have a pretty solid case for defamation of character when someone posts porn of you without your consent.
I can agree with this viewpoint. Criminal charges should be an option here; however, it should be at the option of the injured party, not automatic, as the proposed law would make it.
Lewd acts with a minor are illegal in most places in the world. As a result, photographs and videos of such acts are also illegal; it's got nothing to do with the recording medium and everything to do with the acts being recorded. I have a whole different set of issues with simple possession being a major crime, since there are any number of ways you can innocently come into possession of such materials without knowing it, and simply possessing the material does not mean you're creating a market for it (thereby encouraging its production and contributing to child sexual abuse); creating it or seeking it out, however, should be a crime.
Then, as there is likely no release paperwork for the images, the vengeful partner can be sued for defamation of character, amongst other things. The law's got you covered either way.
And the current law provides more than adequate means to pursue your ex when he or she posts those photos or videos. We don't need a new law for this. Period.
Exactly, and the current laws allow you to go after your ex for defamation of character if they post your porn without your permission. That's more than sufficient.
And if I post revenge porn of an ex and he or she should choose not to pursue it, that should be the end of it. They can sue for defamation of character under current laws and they'd have a bullet-proof case, assuming they could prove it was me who posted it. Perhaps my ex knew I was going to post it and he or she is fine with it? Under the proposed new law, that doesn't matter; by posting it after the end of the relationship, I've committed a crime.
A traveling cat salesman starts each day by boxing and shrink-wrapping the cats he hopes to sell that day and ends each day by unboxing his unsold inventory and disposing of any that did not survive.
this is a major event... but I do have to point out how hilarious it would be if the tsunami decided to peter out a half mile from the shore, like Mother Nature's own little April Fools' joke.
My wife was born and raised in Randle, she lived on a hill just like the one in question. The fact that there were trees on the hill tells me it didn't see continual slides, even if those around it did. You make a good point about roots disrupting the stability of the rock, though, and that leads me to ask what, exactly, everyone thinks happens to the rock in these underground caverns when it is not only put in contact with water, but put under pressure. What happens when that water drains and that pressure, which lifted that rock slightly, allowing it to shift from its stable position, is removed?
Your post didn't negate my point, but then, I'm not sure it was meant to.
Hey, you know what? I'm not the one that makes slides and sinkholes happen, physics handles that part. Let's revisit this discussion in a year and see who's right, my email address is right there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of me being too delicate, it's a matter of me being willing and able to call it as I see it. Did I say I was hurt by the attack? Nope.
Actually, yes it is. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has some say, but distribution rights lie with the photographer in all cases.
Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.
Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.
Single as in not a group, not single as in not in a relationship...
And here I am with my tail between my legs. Don't bother wasting your time replying to point out my own misunderstanding of the law; I've just made myself quite aware of this (ironically, as I no longer hold that misunderstanding).
Oh, I read it. And you're correct, libel is a subset of defamation, not all defamation must be libelous, but all libel must be defamatory. The information needn't even be provided out of context or in a false light, as you say; it need only be contrary to one's generally known character. There is no argument to be had, here; instead of just reading posts on Slashdot, go read up on the actual law.
You're confusing libel with defamation. Libel must be false, or believed by the person spreading it to be false. You can defame someone's character by making public some private piece of information about them, which is 100% completely factually accurate, which the general population of people who know that person would find to be out of character for them.
Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that perception of you, your character has been defamed.
And by consenting to being photographed, they're waiving some of those rights. Like the right to tell the photographer who they can share the photograph with.
It is not reasonable to expect everyone around you to be decent human beings. It should be, and ideally it would be, I know that's a world I'd like to live in. But that's not the world you and I live in; we live in reality, where we know there are people out there, a large number of them, who are not, and are probably not capable of being, decent human beings; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that of them.
You misunderstand the mechanics of the situation. By consenting to being photographed or recorded, you've already given the copyright owner (the photographer or videographer) the right to distribute their work, which is theirs; they own it, the law is clear on this point. In this case, a release form serves only as proof of your consent. Incidentally, release forms weren't initially used for this purpose (until people started claiming they had never consented to things they most certainly had), but were (and still are) used to secure that consent after a recording (for example, a news crew may interview several dozen people on the street and record each interview -- usually they state that the interview will not be aired without your consent, which puts that ball squarely in your court --, but only have the 3 or 4 people whose interviews they want to put on the air actually bother signing a release, and they would do so after the fact).
That's why it's called a release; you're releasing your consent after the fact. It's still called a release when it's done in advance, because it's the same form, but the simple act of consenting to the recording is enough, under the law; a release at that point is just ass-covering.
There are so many shades of gray here, there isn't enough time before the heat death of the universe to explain them all. Images of actual rape and actual murder actually as they're actually happening actually are illegal. The one exception, at least for rape (who's gonna charge the guy who was just unwittingly starred in a snuff file, anyway), is for the victim; he or she can and should do everything possible to record the act in order to use it as evidence after the fact.
Once you start talking about stealing, it can break down two ways; robbery, or burglary. Let's talk about robbery, because it involves physical interaction between the perpetrator and the victim; now you're filming an assault. That's also illegal.
Of course, with the recording of these acts, the law actually considers intent. That's why you don't get nailed for security camera footage, or for recording an event for evidence or to report it in the news.
There's a bit more nuance to it than I've described in this post, but I'm sure you can start developing the rest on your own.
That's reporting that it happened, not making it happen for the purpose of recording it. That's where the difference comes in. Find a way to graphically depict the sexual abuse of a child without filming or photographing the act in progress and I'll support your argument; until then, perhaps you need to learn to see shades of gray, there are more than 2.
If it's in your character and that character is generally known by those who know you, then your character is being upheld, not defamed, when porn of you is released. I never said it was alright for it to be released, just that it's not defamation of character. Furthermore, it is extremely irresponsible to expect any level of privacy when doing *anything* in front of a camera.
And who brought number of partners into this? 1, 2, 3, 20, the entire state of Rhode Island, it doesn't really matter; porn of you doing it being released without your permission is only defamation of your character if it's not generally known that it is in your character to do those kinds of things.
Your 3rd remark doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion.
When you make up your own arguments to argue against, though, it's pretty hard to lose, isn't it?
Most similar cases I'm aware of (just a handful, though there are many more out there) have been pretty cut and dry. The few instances where it's gone the other way were situations where the plaintiff's own friends were called as character witnesses and straight up called out the plaintiff as exactly the kind of person they'd expect to see in porn; in that case, posting porn would be supporting, rather than defaming, one's character, but those cases are, by far, the minority.
That is to say, unless you're such a slut or manwhore that your own friends will attest to that fact under oath, you have a pretty solid case for defamation of character when someone posts porn of you without your consent.
I can agree with this viewpoint. Criminal charges should be an option here; however, it should be at the option of the injured party, not automatic, as the proposed law would make it.
Lewd acts with a minor are illegal in most places in the world. As a result, photographs and videos of such acts are also illegal; it's got nothing to do with the recording medium and everything to do with the acts being recorded. I have a whole different set of issues with simple possession being a major crime, since there are any number of ways you can innocently come into possession of such materials without knowing it, and simply possessing the material does not mean you're creating a market for it (thereby encouraging its production and contributing to child sexual abuse); creating it or seeking it out, however, should be a crime.
Then, as there is likely no release paperwork for the images, the vengeful partner can be sued for defamation of character, amongst other things. The law's got you covered either way.
And the current law provides more than adequate means to pursue your ex when he or she posts those photos or videos. We don't need a new law for this. Period.
Exactly, and the current laws allow you to go after your ex for defamation of character if they post your porn without your permission. That's more than sufficient.
And if I post revenge porn of an ex and he or she should choose not to pursue it, that should be the end of it. They can sue for defamation of character under current laws and they'd have a bullet-proof case, assuming they could prove it was me who posted it. Perhaps my ex knew I was going to post it and he or she is fine with it? Under the proposed new law, that doesn't matter; by posting it after the end of the relationship, I've committed a crime.
Nope, not okay.
Only in Chinatown.
A traveling cat salesman starts each day by boxing and shrink-wrapping the cats he hopes to sell that day and ends each day by unboxing his unsold inventory and disposing of any that did not survive.
Use that as a starting point.
this is a major event... but I do have to point out how hilarious it would be if the tsunami decided to peter out a half mile from the shore, like Mother Nature's own little April Fools' joke.
My wife was born and raised in Randle, she lived on a hill just like the one in question. The fact that there were trees on the hill tells me it didn't see continual slides, even if those around it did. You make a good point about roots disrupting the stability of the rock, though, and that leads me to ask what, exactly, everyone thinks happens to the rock in these underground caverns when it is not only put in contact with water, but put under pressure. What happens when that water drains and that pressure, which lifted that rock slightly, allowing it to shift from its stable position, is removed?
Your post didn't negate my point, but then, I'm not sure it was meant to.
Hey, you know what? I'm not the one that makes slides and sinkholes happen, physics handles that part. Let's revisit this discussion in a year and see who's right, my email address is right there.