Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Havohej]

The comparison isn't absurd at all.

In one case, we have a woman with pictures of her nudity being spread without her consent.

In the other case, we have a woman with pictures of her nudity being spread without her consent.

The reason why discussions like this rarely go anywhere is people hunker down on their moral views and refuse to suffer the inclusion of any semblance of logic.

And just so I'm not accused of being passive aggressive, yes, I am saying that is what you're doing, but I'm also saying that it is a very common behavior of people in general.

[Jace]

One is public. One is private. I mean, really. It doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

[Havohej]

So you are saying, then, that it is okay to publish nude photos of a woman without her consent because she happened to be nude in public?

[Jace]

So you are saying, then, that it is okay to publish nude photos of a woman without her consent because she happened to be nude in public?

It may be an asshole thing to do, but there is nothing illegal about it.

[Havohej]

So it's not tantamount to rape, as has been so heavily implied regarding the celeb photo leaks, because it isn't illegal, despite being essentially the same act (i.e., the dissemination of nude images without the consent of the photographed party).

Interesting.

EDIT: Let there be no mistake, here.  I am not saying that it is right to spread these photos.  It's wrong.  On a number of levels.  I'm only saying I have no sympathy for them because they knowingly and willingly participated in generating the photos.  I also have no sympathy for the woman on the nude beach because she was nude in public knowing that she's a person paparazzi would kill or die to get a picture of in general, let alone a nude one.

That does not, however, make it right.

[Jace]

So it's not tantamount to rape, as has been so heavily implied regarding the celeb photo leaks, because it isn't illegal, despite being essentially the same act (i.e., the dissemination of nude images without the consent of the photographed party).

Interesting.

First of all, I never said it was tantamount to rape. I said it was a sex crime. There is a difference in severity that should be noted.

Nope, as I clearly stated it is not the same act. You are aware of this and are intentionally avoiding it. Take a piss in your home, then go do it in public. See if it is the same act. Hint: it's not. Public versus private is a fundamental distinction that you have to be aware of but are attempting to ignore.

Edit: I'm going to bow out of the discussion as I attempted to do several posts ago. There is no point in continuing it. We can each have our own opinions, but in the end it is a political matter.

[Havohej]

Pissing in my home versus pissing in an alley are different, yes.

Posting the pictures I let you take of my doing it without my consent or stealing pictures I let someone else take of my doing it, in either venue, and posting them without my consent are the same thing - posting pictures of me pissing without my consent.

Are we debating different points?

[Jace]

Pissing in my home versus pissing in an alley are different, yes.

Posting the pictures I let you take of my doing it without my consent or stealing pictures I let someone else take of my doing it, in either venue, and posting them without my consent are the same thing - posting pictures of me pissing without my consent.

Are we debating different points?

No, you just are ignoring the relevance of the 'steal' part of the whole situation. It is very relevant to the severity and categorization of what occurred.

Edit: I'm off to bed. As I said earlier, this sort of topic only has political final answers (who has the political power to enforce their views on it) and I was already burned out on the topic long ago when this all first broke in the news, so cheerio.

[orange]

stealing pictures I let someone else take

Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam.  Unless  Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.

So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.

[Ollie]

Came to thread expecting news of Voldemort's imminent return. Left disappointed by more 4chan rubbish/shenanigans.

[Havohej]

stealing pictures I let someone else take

Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam.  Unless  Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.

So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.

Is that so?  There needn't be any contract, verbal or otherwise, regarding the use of the images?  That is, Adam doesn't have to be okay with Beth publishing the images on the internet or elsewhere at all?

If that's how the law works, that's pretty fucked imo...  but just more reason not to be doing it.

[Ollie]

Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.

Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive  there's the need for consent.

[orange]

stealing pictures I let someone else take

Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam.  Unless  Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.

So, unless the images were selfies, the subjects of the photos likely do not own the images in either case.

Is that so?  There needn't be any contract, verbal or otherwise, regarding the use of the images?  That is, Adam doesn't have to be okay with Beth publishing the images on the internet or elsewhere at all?

If that's how the law works, that's pretty fucked imo...  but just more reason not to be doing it.

That is my understanding, based on articles concerning a monkey taking its own photo (monkey selfie).

Technically, in most cases, whoever makes the actual work gets the copyright. That is, if you hand your camera to a stranger to take your photo, technically that stranger holds the copyright on the photo, though no one ever enforces this.

Image ownership is actually a major issue given the ubiquity of cameras and the rapidity with which people share those images.

Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.

Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive  there's the need for consent.

Is that law or the publisher w/ legal team covering their own ass?

A law requiring it is different than a company legal team recommending such a consent form be signed so that John Doe relinquishes any possible liability the publisher may have.  In addition, such a law is almost unenforceable at this juncture - go to a club, take a selfie having fun (people in background), post it to blog - no consent forms signed by the other club goers I am guessing (either with you or the club).

[Ollie]

Can't speak for anywhere else but in Australia you have to give written consent for photos/images to be published in any form of public forum/media I believe. Anything else puts the publisher at risk of legal action.

Add: referencing people deemed 'not of public interest' (read celebrities) above. I think there are loopholes relating to photography of celebrities and people in circumstances of public interest (court cases, public events, sports people, etc) which allow print media to publish those images in association with a related article, but if you're not in the public spotlight or are dealing with a circumstance that could be reasonably considered private or exclusive  there's the need for consent.

Is that law or the publisher w/ legal team covering their own ass?

A law requiring it is different than a company legal team recommending such a consent form be signed so that John Doe relinquishes any possible liability the publisher may have.  In addition, such a law is almost unenforceable at this juncture - go to a club, take a selfie having fun (people in background), post it to blog - no consent forms signed by the other club goers I am guessing (either with you or the club).

It's a little from column A and a little from column B. In reality, at least in Australia, the legal situation isn't as black and white as either you or I have tried to summarise it as.

This gives a bit of an overview which helps to get an appreciation for how individual circumstance and precedent works in tandem with common law rulings:

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

To address the specific hypothetical you raised:

Importantly, if a person (Adam) allows another person (Beth) to take (nude or otherwise) photos of Adam, Beth actually owns the images, not Adam.  Unless  Beth and Adam sign a contract giving Adam rights over the image, Beth has copyright over the images.

Under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) ownership isn't the issue - it's about circumstance. If Adam could reasonably expect privacy to be afforded and hasn't given specific consent otherwise, if Beth then goes and posts it all over news or social media she might be expected to at least have a case to answer. Interestingly, it would probably be a criminal case rather than a civil one - at least to my reading of it.

Whether she was found guilty of any wrongdoing would be a matter for the courts and the lawyers to hash out.

[Shiori]

Jennifer Lawrence is as hot as I thought she'd be, though.

Fact is I have zero sympathy for them.
[...]
EDIT: Which is to say, it's their own fault.  They took a risk when they took the pictures and transmitted them electronically.  There are nudes of me on the interwebs, but you know what?  None of them have my face in them.  Now I'm not famous, so I'm not a target for hackers to wanna expose the junk in my trunk, but any one of these women could've taken that very simple precaution.

Spanking it pretty hard to someone you feel zero sympathy for, Havo? Most people go for a cuddle afterwards, not straight to the short skirt defense.

kek.