Per this articlecalling for the criminalization of posting revenge porn naked pics of your ex on public sites.
On one side posting these sort of pics can nuke a persons public and professional reputation. On the other side the person to whom the pics were given presumably owns those pics to do with as they see fit.
Assuming the pics and or videos were not stolen, but (at some point) were given or emailed to the poster putting them up on these sites, can criminalizing this sort of thing be implemented without damage to First Amendment protections?
Oh, sure. First Amendment is broad, but lots of speech is prohibited.
Posting pics of someone in a public place should be allowed. But private pics imply privacy.
What’s the difference in First Amendment terms between this and any other intentional breach of copyright? In your hypothetical, you say that the pictures were given to the person publishing them. That means that the person publishing them likely doesn’t have copyright in them.
I believe it can. AIUI receiving lawful posession of a picture or video does NOT automatically transfer the rights to “do with as they see fit” when it comes to** publishing/dissemination** except as allowed under Fair Use. It’s not even required that you include a notice of copyright or express reservation of rights.
While I’m all for people posting pics of themselves or of someone else with permission I don’t care for revenge type pics but if they are yours to post then it is your business. People should remember that just because someone is nice to you now doesn’t mean that it will always be the case. I think hidden camera in a dressing room type pics are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed
Don’t you normally need a release from the model (who owns the rights to his of her image) as well as the photographer (who owns the rights to the photograph).
I know there are exceptions for things like pictures taken in public or newsworthiness but they don’t seem applicable here.
Agreement with the view that a model release should be necessary.
The publication of such photos shouldn’t be “illegal,” but actionable in civil court. As a body of precedent builds, the punitive damages will increase. You might get away with a small fine if you’re one of the first to do this, but don’t be the hundredth or thousandth.
You need a model release if the photograph is used for “commercial purposes”. I use quotes because commercial purposes means something very different from what most people assume - it means advertising, basically. The photographer can publish or sell photographs in most circumstances without needing a release.
Of course. And I do believe that on these sites* the poster is not compensated. Not sure if that muddies up the water any.
*ETA I mean on the types of sites the OP is referring to, not Facebook and Instagram. I’m sure everyone knows Facebook doesn’t pay you when you posts a pic.
Really? That seems to say I can take nude photos of a model and then sell them to Playboy without a model release, which runs counter to what I’ve always heard. I knew a guy who was a photographer who worked with nude models and he certainly always made sure to have his models sign releases.
I don’t think so. I could be wrong, I admit, but I can’t find the laws that you seem to believe exist.
I do find the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, codified at 18 USC 1801, which prohibits the taking of “an image of a private area of an individual without their consent.” But it applies only to the areas of federal control outside states, and it doesn’t specify that the consent must be in writing. And of course it applies only to “private areas” of the body.
A specific state may well have a law that deals with the issue, but I doubt there’s a general rule across all states.
Still, it’s not my area of law, and so it may be that my quick research was too quick to be thorough.