Revenge P0rn, Copyright problem?

P

pocquet

Suspended / Banned
Messages
103
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
No
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123128

While I totally agree its a horrible thing to do and should be stopped..

I was interested if there was a copyright issue over the images?

I could be totally wrong with this one so feel free to flame me and call me an idiot etc

I was under the impression as long as the image is taken of a subject from either the photographer's (I use the term loosely, perhaps image taker?) privately owned place, a public place or with permission of the owner of the area/building with no caveat around distribution etc. Then the photographer owns the image, not the subject of said image. The Photographer then has the right to use the image as he/she sees fit?

Well if that's the case surely its lawful that the image with the consent of the photographer is shared?

I understand there's harassment laws etc but on basic copyright level am I right or have I got it wrong?
 
pocquet said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123128

While I totally agree its a horrible thing to do and should be stopped..

I was interested if there was a copyright issue over the images?

I could be totally wrong with this one so feel free to flame me and call me an idiot etc

I was under the impression as long as the image is taken of a subject from either the photographer's (I use the term loosely, perhaps image taker?) privately owned place, a public place or with permission of the owner of the area/building with no caveat around distribution etc. Then the photographer owns the image, not the subject of said image. The Photographer then has the right to use the image as he/she sees fit?

Well if that's the case surely its lawful that the image with the consent of the photographer is shared?

I understand there's harassment laws etc but on basic copyright level am I right or have I got it wrong?
Click to expand...

Your thinking too deeply on this. Revenge porn is there for humiliation, harassment & obviously revenge. The sooner it's made illegal the better regardless of any copyright issues
 
pocquet said:
I understand there's harassment laws etc but on basic copyright level am I right or have I got it wrong?
Click to expand...
At a basic copyright level i suspect you're right but as you and @jakeblu have said, the sooner it is illegal and people can be held to account for the abhorrent practice the better.
 
What he said. I don't think copyright is the way to deal with this
 
I'm with you all there.

However..

Just to play devils advocate.

If I am in a sexual relationship and I take posed art nudes of the lady in question

The pictures are my best work and she agrees (but no signed documentation to that fact) that I can display them on marketing or on a website that is not related to this horrible trend.

The relationship then goes south and vindictively she says these images are 'revenge p0rn' what then?
 
then nothing.

Revenge porn is about posting them after the relationship is over on a revenge porn or other social site designed to ridicule and embarass.
 
Just because you own the copyright to something doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do what you like with it.

To take another example from photography, there exist limits on what you can do re publication of street photography. You can technically be prosecuted for publishing an image in such a way that a person in it can be easily identified (i.e. a stranger can work out who they are from the image or accompanying information), if you don't have their consent.
 
pocquet said:
I'm with you all there.

However..

Just to play devils advocate.

If I am in a sexual relationship and I take posed art nudes of the lady in question

The pictures are my best work and she agrees (but no signed documentation to that fact) that I can display them on marketing or on a website that is not related to this horrible trend.

The relationship then goes south and vindictively she says these images are 'revenge p0rn' what then?
Click to expand...
Probably nothing would happen. The Crown would likely find it too difficult to prosecute, especially if they were obviously staged shots taken demonstrably within the time the relationship was a happy one.

That said, contriving a hypothetical situation that would present a difficult legal grey area is easy for any criminal law you'd care to mention. Doesn't make them bad ideas.
 
ghoti said:
Just because you own the copyright to something doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do what you like with it.

To take another example from photography, there exist limits on what you can do re publication of street photography. You can technically be prosecuted for publishing an image in such a way that a person in it can be easily identified (i.e. a stranger can work out who they are from the image or accompanying information), if you don't have their consent.
Click to expand...


While you don't have carte Blanche you can't be prosecuted (technically or not) for publishing a photo of a stranger. Way ot though
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
You can technically be prosecuted for publishing an image in such a way that a person in it can be easily identified (i.e. a stranger can work out who they are from the image or accompanying information), if you don't have their consent.
Click to expand...

No you can't...

They can maybe sue you if the image is used in a way to cause them harm, hence the advice to get consent/release/etc.
 
If she claims they were commissioned works she has the right to refuse to have them displayed publically regardless of you owning the copyright (even without commissioned, there is probably a case for taken with the expectation of privacy - unless she specifically agreed you could send them to readers wives ;) )

you are right though that theres no criminal offence commited by publishing a strangers photo - except harassment (and that requires more than one occasion , and malicious intent )

That aside copyright isnt the way to go - repeatedlu posting revenge porn is harassment pure and simple - anyone who does that with photos he took of his ex while they were together wants his arm bending the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
Broric said:
No you can't...

They can maybe sue you if the image is used in a way to cause them harm, hence the advice to get consent/release/etc.
Click to expand...
You can be criminally in breach of the DPA (although breaches of the DPA are not usual criminal, they can be). And you can "technically"* be in breach of the DPA by publishing photos of strangers without their consent.

JISC have a thorough overview here, which urges far more caution** than the usual "you can photograph what you like in public" advice that photographers are often hastily given: http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/data-protection

Where DPA breaches become criminal matters is covered here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/data_protection/

*"technically", as most cases are unlikely to be worth pursuing

**again, I'll concede that it's verging on paranoid, but we are talking about what is "technically" possible and not what is likely
 
Excerpt from the pertinent section of the JISC piece:

"The courts have determined that photographs and images of people are capable of being personal data (the case of Durant v Financial Services ). Where the name and image of a person are linked - or are capable of being linked - then the person can be identified and the image should be regarded as personal data.

The problem arises where an image is anonymous (unnamed and unknown to the Data Controller) but is theoretically capable of being recognised and identified by someone else who knows that individual.

The Act states that personal data is information relating to living people who can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller (our italics). Does 'can be identified' mean 'is identified' or more broadly 'is capable of being identified'?

The UK courts have not yet ruled on this issue. The Information Commissioner's Office has not given unambiguous guidance, but has tended towards the 'is capable of being identified' definition. They have said to JISC Digital Media that where a person is the focus of an image, that image is likely to be personal data - even in the absence of a name or other identifying information. But where people are incidentally included in an image or are not the focus (e.g. a busy street scene) the Information Commission's Office believe that the image is unlikely to contain personal data."
 
technically to the point of being absolute horse s*** ... it says in your link "uk courts have not yet ruled on this issue"

also it is difficult for an individual to breach the DPA in this sense as most of the provisions relate to organisations who have lawful possession of sensitive data

another issue is that its the publication of said data that's the issue - so if I put a naked photo of my ex* on talk photography without her consent am I breaching the DPA or is it Slack Media who would theoretically get prosecuted ..." it aint my website gov"

(* actually in her case so many men have seen her naked that my defence would be that the 'information' was already in the public domain ;) ...... not that I'm bitter or anything :LOL: )
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
technically to the point of being absolute horse s*** ... it says in your link "uk courts have not yet ruled on this issue"

also it is difficult for an individual to breach the DPA in this sense as most of the provisions relate to organisations who have lawful possession of sensitive data
Click to expand...
A data controller is the legal entity that handles or processes personal data, and a data controller can very easily be an individual. If photos where a stranger is a clear subject are considered legal "personal data" (and the ICO says they probably are - although granted this has yet to be tested) then a street photographer is a legal data controller.
 
big soft moose said:
another issue is that its the publication of said data that's the issue - so if I put a naked photo of my ex* on talk photography without her consent am I breaching the DPA or is it Slack Media who would theoretically get prosecuted ..." it aint my website gov"
Click to expand...
The government website suggests it's the uploader that is the primary "data controller", not the host.
 
ghoti said:
A data controller is the legal entity that handles or processes personal data, and a data controller can very easily be an individual. If photos where a stranger is a clear subject are considered legal "personal data" (and the ICO says they probably are - although granted this has yet to be tested) then a street photographer is a legal data controller.
Click to expand...

but to date this is only an issue if you name the subject of your picture (as with the Weller case) , otherwise it turns on the likelihood of the person you have photographed being recognised, and also whether they were doing something sensitive ... the Campbell case was ruled a sensitive data because she was outside a rehab centre - some random in the street isn't sensitive data even if it is personal (and if you don't know who they are then you don't possess the personal data in the first place and thus can't be held to release it)

of course revenge porn could be said to be sensitive - but if you don't name the subject currently you are relatively safe at least from a DPA based prosecution
 
Its not unknown for some photographer to have relationship with there model i can think of a few famous names, if this is your sort of work i would make sure all the legal paper work that you need is well & truly signed.
 
its getting a wee bit of track isn't it chaps..........Just imagine, someone posts revenge porn. The subjects best recourse is the DPA. I don't think so. We're talking about harassment, humiliation and revenge, and thats somehow being pulled down to a mindless comment about technicalities of the DPA. Really?
 
The Data Protection Act would not apply to a private individual doing street photography
 
Keith W said:
The Data Protection Act would not apply to a private individual doing street photography
Click to expand...
Let's not continue down this route as it's veering way off topic as highlighted by the post above yours. So I'm not going to drone on about it again, but the legal position supported by the ICO is that "it might if an individual is the clear subject of a photo", although it's yet to be tested in the courts. If you want to know why, read the discussion a few posts back.

If you want to discuss it further we should probably start a new thread.
 
ghoti said:
Let's not continue down this route as it's veering way off topic as highlighted by the post above yours. So I'm not going to drone on about it again, but the legal position supported by the ICO is that "it might if an individual is the clear subject of a photo", although it's yet to be tested in the courts. If you want to know why, read the discussion a few posts back.

If you want to discuss it further we should probably start a new thread.
Click to expand...

It is relevant to this thread and it is how discussion develops

I stand by what I have said - having spoken with the ICO on many occasions about the processing of data and the rights of individuals

I have also read this thread and the the websites linked to

If anybody would like clarification on this then I suggest that you contact the ICO directly yourself and get guidance
 
CanonDjango said:
then nothing.

Revenge porn is about posting them after the relationship is over on a revenge porn or other social site designed to ridicule and embarass.
Click to expand...


have you got any links to this site ,i need a good laugh :naughty::naughty:
 
As a previous poster said. We don't need to over think this one. Copyright is beside the point. This is a cruel and vile act and if there isn't already a law which can be used to prosecute, then we need one asap.
 
personally I think it's a step too far - if you are happy to pose for the shots then it's your own fault. while it's a moral issue to post the pictures you have taken online I don't see it as criminal. if someone publishes a self took picture then that has different implications.

if you don't want your bits in public don't let them be photographed. these people are just victims of their own stupidity.
 
POAH said:
personally I think it's a step too far - if you are happy to pose for the shots then it's your own fault. while it's a moral issue to post the pictures you have taken online I don't see it as criminal. if someone publishes a self took picture then that has different implications.

if you don't want your bits in public don't let them be photographed. these people are just victims of their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
Disagree entirely.

If you're in a place in your relationship that you want to share that between yourself and partner great, personal choice. If it all turns sour to have those private, personal photos uploaded or shared for revenge purposes is wrong, full stop.
 
Aren't a lot of these pics selfies? In which case, the person who took them (eg the girl) would still own copyright but chose to share their work?
I'm probably talking BS but whatever. Don't agree with the act of revenge.
 
Sharky said:
Disagree entirely.

If you're in a place in your relationship that you want to share that between yourself and partner great, personal choice. If it all turns sour to have those private, personal photos uploaded or shared for revenge purposes is wrong, full stop.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying sharing them purely for revenge purposes isn't morally wrong but to criminalise it is. if you take a photo you shouldn't be stopped from selling it or posting it online or sharing it. if you don't want to see your boobs, bush or bum online don't pose for it. we shouldn't be crossing civil liberties to cover for people's stupidity.
 
I suppose it also depends on why the person concerned is taking revenge, as there are circumstances where revenge is morrally justified, and circumstances where its a dish best served with a big f*** off spoon (we are also assuming its all blokes against girls - there must have been cases where a girl has shared naked photos of her ex... hell have no fury and all that)

That said in most cases its wrong - personally speaking at least three female members here have taken it into their heads to send me naughty photos of themselves - but i've never shared any of them.. and these are girls that ive not even had a relationship with , I couldn't see any circumstances where i would share intimate photos... even with the psycho hosebeast from hell who was unfaithful with about half a rugby team (and for all i know referees, linesmen, spectators, groundsmen, random passers by etc) ... I might have been hurt as hell when i found out, but it didnt occur to me to post naked picturs of her all over the internet
 
POAH said:
I'm not saying sharing them purely for revenge purposes isn't morally wrong but to criminalise it is. if you take a photo you shouldn't be stopped from selling it or posting it online or sharing it. if you don't want to see your boobs, bush or bum online don't pose for it. we shouldn't be crossing civil liberties to cover for people's stupidity.
Click to expand...

I'm in this camp personally, While the revenge is vile, My original question was of a posed art nude style picture that you publish within a loving relationship with no intention of revenge when the relationship goes south.

However whats to stop the model in question from calming that its revenge porn and getting back at photographer/ex lover?

Yes the intent behind the image needs to be reviewed and understood however I worry that if the wrong judgment is passed it might give a Model pseudo overall control of the image of themselves by claiming that they had a sexual relationship with the photographer. Rather than the photographer themselves having copyright on the image.

Anyways no need to over-think or get heated on this one :) I think we can all agree its not a nice thing to do, no matter that that *female dog*/*illegitimate child* did to you :)
 
date it bwas shared would be the key point there - if you could prove you shared it while still in the relationship thered by no case to answer
 
POAH said:
I'm not saying sharing them purely for revenge purposes isn't morally wrong but to criminalise it is. if you take a photo you shouldn't be stopped from selling it or posting it online or sharing it. if you don't want to see your boobs, bush or bum online don't pose for it. we shouldn't be crossing civil liberties to cover for people's stupidity.
Click to expand...
A very blinkered view imo. If an intimate photo is taken and shared between two or more individuals during the course of a relationship it is in my mind a private and personal matter. It's their choice. That does not mean a person then has rights to publish the photo to the world for whatever reason either revenge, bitterness or simply because they can. Morally knowing something is wrong doesn't stop someone from doing it, legislation and sending out the clear message 'this is against the law' might give any 'victim' some redress if it did occur.
 
they do have the right to publish it - just because a photo contains genitals shouldn't change the law on your legal right on photographs. I'm pretty sick and tired of reading about these females in the news who's lives have been apparently ruined by nude photos. they made the choice to pose for them. if they had issues at work because of them, they should have complained about bullying rather than bottling it all up. that's the problem not the publishing of their naked bodies.
 
POAH said:
they do have the right to publish it - just because a photo contains genitals shouldn't change the law on your legal right on photographs. I'm pretty sick and tired of reading about these females in the news who's lives have been apparently ruined by nude photos. they made the choice to pose for them. if they had issues at work because of them, they should have complained about bullying rather than bottling it all up. that's the problem not the publishing of their naked bodies.
Click to expand...
Typical profile of a revenge porn victim is a young teenage girl who is probably in her first serious sexual relationship and is besotted with the boy and believes he really is the one. A result of teenage hormones, naivety and lack of sexual experience leads them to an act they would not normally consider feeling secure in the belief that these are private images only for the intended. That someone would take advantage of that and use those image to humiliate is pretty despicable I feel pretty much the same about those who condone it.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
they do have the right to publish it - just because a photo contains genitals shouldn't change the law on your legal right on photographs.
Click to expand...

nope - if its taken with a reasonable expectation of privacy you can get sued if you publish it - also if it could reasonably be considered a commisioned work (that is she askedyou to take it) then she has the right to determine whether you can publish
 
POAH said:
that's civil not criminal though
Click to expand...

indeed - but it does show that you don't have right to publish with impunity - theres a difference between "its not illegal to" and "I have a right to"
 
I tell all my woman friends that pose naked for me that they have no right to privacy in my bedroom lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top