Cracked: "What We REALLY Mean When We Talk About Leaked Pics"

[nomorenomore08]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-our-reaction-to-nude-celeb-leaks-says-about-us/

"A few days ago, the naked, personal photos of over 100 celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, and Ariana Grande were published to the Internet without consent from the people pictured. A few of the celebrities have responded (they're not happy!) and most of the pictures have since been taken down, but you can still probably find them by Googling "Hello, I'm kind of a shitty person, give me something that does not legally belong to me as quickly as possible.

Before we get into this, here's a point of order regarding language that I'd like to address: I'm going to be making a concerted effort to use the word "stolen," instead of "leaked" when I talk about these photos and "women" instead of "celebrity" or "A-List Stars" when I talk about the victims. Also, I'm going to use the word "victim," because what we're talking about is a crime.

...

Stolen naked pictures and videos being posted on the Internet isn't a new story. We've seen it before and, while the players always change (today it's Kate Upton, last year it was Scarlett Johansson) and some of the specifics vary (the sheer volume of this particular breach was astounding), the game stays the same. Every time a naked woman's selfie gets stolen and published and the woman in question is super bummed about it, the Internet responds the same way: "If you don't want people to see you naked, don't take naked pictures.

...

Some people use this refrain to sit in holier-than-thou judgment ("Serves you right. No one will ever see pictures of MY butt on the Internet, because I'm so careful and smart and restrained that I've never even BEEN naked.&quot . Still, some other people use it to justify the fact that they looked at the stolen pictures in the first place. It's a sneaky way to distance yourself from the problem: "I'm not the kind of perverted guy who would peek into a woman's window while she was showering or spy on women going to the bathroom, but if you are stupid and trampy enough to have ever taken a naked picture in your life, sure I'll look at it. But, ugh, do you have any with, like, better lighting?"

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-our-reaction-to-nude-celeb-leaks-says-about-us/#ixzz3CXJwbnST

[PeoViejo]

1. I refuse to look at them

Anyone who goes looking for them is complicit in the crime. These assh0les need some Hard Time.

[nomorenomore08]

2. Even if the damage is done, so to speak, one need not participate in the exploitation oneself. n/t

[Helen Borg]

3. I'm abivalent on this, in practice.

If by looking at the pictures I gave money to the perpetrators, then I'd be absolutely against it. But that is not the case. So, I won't judge anyone who just peeks at them out of curiosity.

[nomorenomore08]

5. Me neither, by and large. Even if I think it's tacky at best. n/t

[PeoViejo]

6. ..but you are giving Money to the perpetrators.

the more views they get, the more they make on advertising.


I had this done to me in the past, over a period of years, by people who were trying to discredit me in my community. Being an activist is a tough life. One has to develop a very thick skin.

[pnwmom]

15. But anyone who looks is including himself or herself in the group that is hurting these women.

And that is wrong.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

11. Lol, I looked and...

...I did some Hard time...

[PeoViejo]

12. Very funny.......

It seems a lot of folks think with their Dicks.

[Blue_Adept]

17. Le Results

For those interested;

On Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Lol, I looked and...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5496422

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Misogynist troll at best. These women are people, and women on this board clearly get how this new troll poster feels about women.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:54 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another thought crime. How dare anyone try to cope or process a situation with humor.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Classless, but not "ban worthy" in my opinion.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

30. To the alerter

And those who voted to block my post.

I'm new here, and as a fellow liberal who is the furthest thing from misogynistic, I just wanted to say that in my opinion, you do the cause no good when you take things to such an extreme that you see misogyny in every comment, joke or pun a male you don't know makes in reference to a female body.

Is (theoretically) getting aroused by the sight of a beautiful naked women suddenly Misogynistic????

It was just a silly, innocent pun in reply to another's comment. I can understand if you didnt appreciate the humor, if you thought it was a little crude, but to attack me as misogynistic and try to have me banned over it?

C'mon, with all due respect, lighten up a little. Have some fun, this is a thread about celebrity nude photos, not female genital mutilation in the Middle East. Lets not turn into the hard core black and white rabid ideologs on the right that we abhore.

[RussBLib]

45. that's twice

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

In a statement calling out his troll behavior, he reinforce the getting off on the invasion of a woman's privacy and takes it a step further with the ever present comment for women to lighten up, and a determent to their cause. This is all the classic sexist behavior of a troll that allows us to end up with an oldhippie of years and high post count, continually dissing women, helping to create an hostile environment or women.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 6, 2014, 01:53 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Original post was NOT hidden. Obvious attempt for revenge by alerter.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I can't believe someone alerted to the first comment. Hypersensitivity is not pretty.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: When you're wrong and barely escape the executioner's ax, don't double-down giving them another whack. That's my free advice.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[kcr]

51. You are not the furthest thing from misogynistic

Sorry. ETA I wasn't the alerter, but no one who is the furthest from misogynistic would it occur to them to come in this thread and say that.

[kcr]

62. You're right, I don't know you. I can only go based on what you post here.

And posting "that silly little pun" in this thread about an article explaining why the women are victims isn't the act of someone who is the farthest thing from misogynistic. So I think I'm safe in my judgment. Two things would help you. Context matters and know your audience.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

63. I will concede

probably not the best forum.

[abelenkpe]

56. Nah, you're just a scumbag whose posts I'll never value.

BTW, wasn't on the jury and would not have voted to hide.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

61. Lol, scumbag?

Wow, you must be a blast to hang out with.

[JustAnotherGen]

65. Stop - please stop

I voted to hide your post up thread and I just alerted on the scumbag comment AT you on this one.

[nomorenomore08]

70. That was over the top. But I don't blame people for getting irritated.

There's a time and a place for crude humor, and this thread probably isn't it.

[nomorenomore08]

69. "Is (theoretically) getting aroused by the sight of a beautiful naked women suddenly Misogynistic??"

Not in the slightest. But making a stupid pun on a thread about a serious issue is generally frowned upon here. And the "lighten up" response doesn't help either.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

4. this article is a terrific read. Daniel O'Brien explains the issue perfectly

He explains very clearly that it's theft, that the internet response is victim blaming, and he explains the fact that it's a gendered crime, making it very clear how the crime itself and the ensuing hostility towards the victims doesn't happen to men.

It's an essay worthy of redqueen! Can't recommend it highly enough.

[Fred Sanders]

8. He also does not hold the victims totally blameless either, refreshing.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

66. that's good too. he sure put responsibility where it BELONGS, in this article.

And for that, I'm highly impressed.

[Warpy]

54. He usually does get the point about many different things

His essay on why funny people kill themselves was certainly spot on. I linked that one all over the place.

Cracked.com has become a must read these days.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

67. Cracked used to be a weak version of Mad Magazine, so

It's very cool that they're on a different track now.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

7. Just throwing out there that...

...in a lot of cases these "leaked" pictures and videos are publicity stunts.

Of course, there's no evidence or reason to believe that is the case here, but public outrage may be a bit more subdued than it otherwise would be do to this fact.

[SidDithers]

9. Another excellent article from Cracked...

they really do have some of the best social commentary on their site.

For those who think they're just a humour site, check them out. They're not the Mad magazine rip-off that the print edition was in the 70s and 80s (when I read it)

Thanks for posting.



ETA: Check out Daniel O'Brien's Obsessive Pop-Culture Disorder videos on YouTube. Some pretty funny stuff.

Sid

[arcane1]

28. Agreed. John Cheese has some very insightful columns there too

[progressoid]

10. A owned a thing. B stole it. Let's blame A for having the audacity to own a thing in the first place

Person A owned a thing. Person B stole it. Let's all blame person A for having the audacity to own a thing in the first place.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-our-reaction-to-nude-celeb-leaks-says-about-us/#ixzz3CY3Q8mhh

yup.

[Fred Drum]

13. A owned a thing. A still owns a thing

B made a copy.

difference between theft and violating copyright

[pnwmom]

16. Violating copyright is a type of theft. And viewing someone's stolen

nude pictures is a form of receiving stolen property and a serious violation of that person's personal boundaries.

[Fred Drum]

18. wrong in so many ways

start with this

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/4/6107073/leaked-nudes-jennifer-lawrence-kate-upton-art-show-xvala-fear-google

i'm thinking 'receiving stolen property' isn't one of his concerns, because its ludicrous

and all the people viewing his show, they're not 'receiving stolen property' either

words have meaning

[pnwmom]

19. If he continues with that show, they have the right to sue him and they will win.

You can't make money off of someone else's copyrighted images without permission. There are some exceptions to the copyright rule, but they clearly don't apply in this situation.

[Fred Drum]

20. fair use clearly applies

but i do agree, lawsuits will follow

[pnwmom]

21. Fair use doesn't allow the use of an entire image without permission, and it doesn't

allow the publication of stolen images.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/08/tabloid-publication-of-stolen-photos-is.html

In 2008, Reynoso borrowed a SUV from Oscar Viqueira, a paparazzo who also used to work occasionally for the couple as a driver and bodyguard during their stays in Miami. Apparently, Reynoso left the memory chip of Noelia's camera in the car, and Viqueira found it. When Viqueira looked at the files on the chip, he found the photos of the secret wedding and thought it appropriate to capitalise on the files to extort money that apparently Reynoso already owed him. When his plan failed, Viqueira sold the photos to Maya for $1,500, without the permission of the couple.

SNIP
Noelia and Reynoso decided to sue Maya Magazines and Maya Publishing Group, claiming that they had infringed their copyrights by publishing previously unpublished photos of their clandestine wedding.

Analysis
The district court granted Maya summary judgment on the ground that publication of the images was fair use, but the Circuit Court reversed. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, who delivered the Opinion of the Court (with Judge Milan Smith Jr dissenting), found that that this case read like a "telenovela", but that the tantalising and even newsworthy interest of the photos did not trump a balancing of the four non-exclusive fair use factors.

SNIP

As commented by The Hollywood Reporter, the decision is a huge victory for celebrities, in that it sets an important precedent. For instance, "Hollywood attorney Marty Singer dealt with the leak of a sex tape involving clients Rebecca Gayheart and [Grey's Anatomy Dr Sloan/]Eric Dane. Because Dane was holding the camera, the lawyer argued, he had a copyright interest in the video. Had a lawsuit against Gawker continued instead of settling, Dane might have been able to enjoy the same kind of victory just given to [Noelia] and Reynoso."

[Fred Drum]

23. i don't think you understand fair use

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use

entire photo - fair use

every case is different, i'm sure the courts will have their chance

i'm equally sure the patrons of the art show aren't committing a crime

[pnwmom]

24. I don't think you do. The US appeals case I just referred you to is much more related

to the case of the "artist" and the gallery.

[Fred Drum]

26. as i said, every case is different

but if this ARTIST is displaying numerous pics he collected from google, and 1 of them is jennifer lawrence, pretty hard to argue against fair use.

but i'm sure some will

[pnwmom]

31. If he's displaying whole, unpublished (by the copyright owner) images, he will lose on fair use. n/t

[Fred Drum]

32. from 17 U.S.C. § 107

...The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use...

there are many factors to consider with fair use, and that is a good thing

[pnwmom]

33. The part you deliberately left out is the key part:

"In any case, the fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The other factors, together with the fact that the work is unpublished, will show that this is not a fair use.

[Fred Drum]

39. please continue

which of the "other factors" would you be referring to?

[pnwmom]

40. Please read the article discussing the Appeals Court decision. It discusses the four factors

in detail.

[hifiguy]

36. Fair use doctrine is a fairly broad one.

Luther Campbell swiped an entire Roy Orbison song and the SCOTUS held his parody was fair use. Repurposing something in an artwork - regardless of the intrinsic quality of the art - is almost certainly fair use.

- hfg puts on lawyer hat -

And people need to understand the concept of copyright damages, which clearly few here do. Damages in copyright are measured in terms of financial advantage lost by the copyright holder. A perfect example is bootleg DVDs or CDs. The copyright owner loses royalties to which they would be entitled by way of the bootlegs being sold to people who would otherwise buy the legit product. That is the measure of damages and punitive damages are often tacked on by courts.

A selfie, nude or otherwise, may theoretically be subject to copyright, but the subject of said selfie will be unable, by definition, to show financial damage if the picture was never intended to be made public. A celebrity bringing such a suit would find it quickly dismissed on the grounds that there are no damages which are contemplated under the rubric of copyright. It's an easy call under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A civil suit for invasion of privacy is a completely different thing. However if you sue some teenage hacker for damages, good luck, as that person is almost certainly judgment proof - i.e., stone broke, And then you are pretty much SOL in terms of damages. You will have to prove them in any case, and if you do you probably won't be able to ever collect a dime of them.

[pnwmom]

38. The issue concerns an artist and a gallery, not a broke teenager. If they are sued,

they will lose.

Also, you said:

“A selfie, nude or otherwise, may theoretically be subject to copyright, but the subject of said selfie will be unable, by definition, to show financial damage if the picture was never intended to be made public. A celebrity bringing such a suit would find it quickly dismissed on the grounds that there are no damages which are contemplated under the rubric of copyright. It's an easy call under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

A Federal Appeals Court has already ruled against your position.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/08/tabloid-publication-of-stolen-photos-is.html

Factor #4: Effect upon the potential market

As was held by the Supreme Court in Harper & Row, this is the single most important element of fair use. Maya had argued, and the district court had agreed, that no potential market for the pictures existed, because the plaintiffs did not intend to have them published. The Court rejected this view and stressed once again the importance of letting the copyright owner control the first publication of his/her work.

[hifiguy]

42. Try and prove up the damages, though.

A court could conceivably order punitive damages, but actual damages would be purely speculative.

Right of control and legally cognizable damages are two separate things.

The artist's use of what amount to found materials is an interesting question. If he didn't directly hack them from the cloud, which would be a violation of applicable telecom regulations, it's an open question, I think, whether he can be held responsible in any way for their use is iffy to say the least. The analogy would be finding a box of bootleg videos in the basement of a house you move into. You are not gonna get fined or go to jail for watching them nor should you. I think that how a court would rule on this is an open question and it would be fascinating to read the briefs on both sides.

[progressoid]

22. Copyrights are property.

Photographers own the copyright to photographs at the moment of their creation and are protected by US Federal Copyright Law.

"Copying" them in any form without the photographer's permission is a violation of law. Not to mention, privacy.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

[Fred Drum]

25. copying them would be a copyright violation

not theft, not just like theft, not almost theft

it would be exactly like copyright violation

now cracking apple's iCloud, violating the computer fraud and abuse act, there's the money shot

[progressoid]

27. Right. And copyright violation is a crime.

Everyone who copies them is committing a crime.

The point from the article is blaming party A for having the photos in the first place, rather than party B for committing a crime.

[Fred Drum]

29. i agree victim blaming is WRONG

my point was that copyright violations are not theft

and viewing a photo is not receiving stolen property

words have meaning

[pnwmom]

34. The FBI says that copyright violation is theft.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr

It’s an age-old crime: stealing.
But it’s not about picking a pocket or holding up a bank. It’s robbing people of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—what’s called intellectual property—everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.

It’s a growing threat—especially with the rise of digital technologies and Internet file sharing networks. And much of the theft takes place overseas, where laws are often lax and enforcement more difficult. All told, intellectual property theft costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars a year and robs the nation of jobs and lost tax revenues.

Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI’s criminal investigative program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

SNIP

[Fred Drum]

41. lucky for us that the FBI doesn't write the laws

appeal to authority is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused

"the FBI says" probably wont work in a court of law

[pnwmom]

52. They enforce the laws, and determine who they will prosecute.

And in this case, the precedent says they would win.

[Fred Drum]

57. as i've stated a couple of times now

if there is a prosecution, it will be violating the computer fraud and abuse act, which has significant penalties

they won't be prosecuted for theft, as nothing was stolen

[pnwmom]

64. They can be charged with theft of intellectual property, because intellectual property was stolen.nt

[Fred Drum]

68. we're just arguing past each other

some in this thread have assumed that my position is that no crime was committed, it is not

crimes were committed and should be prosecuted

now were just disagreeing on which laws apply

a cursory search for how the gov't has absolutely abused people with the CFAA, think aaron swartz, should relieve you of any fear the perps will get off scot free

they are facing very severe legal consequences, as they should

and , as always, copyright violations are not theft

[sub.theory]

35. Idiotic Logic

This has to win some sort of award for utterly idiotic logic.

If I make a copy of your medical records without your consent, it's a crime.

If I make a copy of hundred dollar bills, it's a crime.

If I make a copy of classified documents, it's a crime.

If I access your banking account and make a copy without your permission it's a crime.

If I access your voicemail and make a copy without your permission, it's a crime.

Of course, when it's nudie pictures of attractive women then it's fine. I guess if you get your rocks off it's all good.

Just amazed at the depths people are going to justify this.

[hifiguy]

43. There is a difference between justifying something and

explaining the applicable law. I haven't seen the pictures and don't even know who these women are.

The only person who seems to have broken any law is the one who hacked the phones/cloud. That is a criminal offense.

And people should bother to learn whether their devices are storing stuff in something as easily hackable as the cloud.

[sub.theory]

47. More blaming the victims

"They should have been more careful. It's their own fault."

Heard this crap before. Completely typical of women and sex crimes.

[hifiguy]

48. Bullshit.

Every person should be as careful with their personal data as possible. EVERY PERSON. It is only the most basic common sense to do so.

[sub.theory]

50. Bullshit yourself

You know damn well only women were targeted in this theft. Don't pretend otherwise.

[hifiguy]

60. I was not referring to that particular theft.

It should remain uppermost in people's minds - everyone's - to know something about the technology they use and where their data is being stored. That is just common sense, which is sometimes in short supply these days.

[sub.theory]

46. It is theft and it's a crime

This exactly the point of the OP, but you refuse to accept it.

This isn't copyright infringement. It's theft. I provided several other examples of crimes, not copyright infringement. This is no different. It is a crime.

You're attempting to minimize a disgusting crime, and I can only guess at your motives for doing so.

[Fred Drum]

49. i'm not minimizing anything

the fact you can't distinguish between theft and copyright violations is on you

but neither of those offenses can come close to the penalties available for violating the computer fraud and abuse act

whoever cracked the iCloud could easily be looking at life (i.e 20 counts at 5-10 yrs each)

but please continue to guess on my motives, i don't need to guess on your intellect

[sub.theory]

53. Useless

You yourself state that the perpetrators face possible life sentences and then still try to maintain it's copyright violation.

I'm afraid I just can't help you. I've already tried to explain it to you like a five year old.

[Fred Drum]

58. i agree with this

you tried to explain it like you were five years old

now let me try to explain this as if you were an adult

they will not be prosecuted for copyright violation, as that is a civil offense. they could certainly be sued

they will be prosecuted for violating the computer fraud and abuse act, CFAA, a truly horrid piece of legislation, that none the less could be put to good use in this case

they will not be prosecuted for theft, as nothing was stolen

[Blue_Adept]

14. But A owned something that I think was immoral!

At least that's what a number of people have been saying. So since it goes against what they think people should do, they deserve.

Which in turn just means they need a good slap for thinking like that.

[hunter]

37. If I grope your ass on the train, you still own it, right?

So what's the problem?



Stealing these photos is just another form of sexual harassment.

[cwydro]

55. Celebrities bore me.

With or without their clothes on.

I can think of some exceptions, but I still don't need (or want) to see them naked.