Quinn signs 'revenge porn' ban into law

[inanna]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn on Monday signed a measure into law that will make it a felony to post sexually explicit videos and photos of another person online without their permission.

The law is aimed at preventing a practice known as "revenge porn," in which a former lover shares what were intended to be private images on the Internet as a means of retribution.

Under the law, which goes into effect Thursday, the "non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images" becomes a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000. The law also would require the forfeiture of any money or goods received in exchange for posting the images.

Supporters said the law was needed to deter acts of vengeance that are usually targeted at women and can destroy reputations and careers. Opponents argued the law would infringe on the right to free speech.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-quinn-signs-illinois-revenge-porn-law-met-1230-20141229-story.html

---

This is FANTASTIC!

[ColesCountyDem]

1. I suspect the IL Supreme Court will strike it down, after staying enforcement immediately.

Our state Supreme Court is very pro-1st Amendment.

[BadGimp]

4. I sincerely hope so

[ColesCountyDem]

5. So do I.

I don't care for thought police.

[seabeyond]

13. this has nothing to do with thought police.

[ColesCountyDem]

24. It's stifling the right of free speech.

If that's not thought police, then I don't know what it is.

[chervilant]

53. Why is "revenge porn" free speech?

Do you think legislating hate crimes infringes on "free speech"?

Do you think stopping bullies infringes on their "free speech"?

What would you recommend to stop revenge porn? Do you have any suggestions that you'd find suitably respectful of your "free speech" rights?

[cstanleytech]

54. If these were photos or videos being taken illegally

I could completely understand but they were obtained legally and with consent.
I mean sure a person who posts them for revenge is a douchebag dont get me wrong but being a douchebag isnt a crime though its tempting to make it one.

[chervilant]

59. If "these were photos or videos" "obtained legally and with consent,"

then how is it that they meet the criteria for "revenge porn"?

I doubt sincerely that the young woman whose vengeful ex-boyfriend posted nude pics of her on her employer's facebook page felt that those private photos were "obtained legally and with consent."

[cstanleytech]

64. Because people are posting them to humiliate an ex thus the revenge portion but

by and large alot of the people in these still consented to the video or photo being taken and some were even active participates in the taking.

[chervilant]

67. Well, durn, stanley...

I can see that you just don't get it. Not a single woman I know actively participates in taking nude pics or videos of herself with the intent of having such private images posted publicly in order to be embarrassed or humiliated.

And, you might note for the record that the majority of the vengeful parties are male, and that this is one of the modern versions of relationship violence. It really should not be tolerated.

[cstanleytech]

69. I never said they had intent for them to be posted online.

In fact I bet most people would say hell no to that but the problem is unless they specified such a clause there isnt to much you can do once you let the horse out of the barn.

[chervilant]

91. Apparently,

this new legislation says otherwise...

[cstanleytech]

92. Assuming it doesnt get tossed out by the courts which could happen, we are just going to have to

wait and see what the courts say about it.

[chervilant]

94. Does it not occur to you that the legislation

came into fruition because so many pitiable men have seen fit to post salacious pics/videos of their ex-girlfriends on various social media in order to embarrass and/or humiliate these women? Does it mean nothing that a significant percentage of these pathetic men can be defined as batterers?

Or, do you honestly think that these women should have been prescient about their perverse, puerile ex-boyfriends, and never indulged in voyeuristic sex play with them, just in case they turned out to be such worms?

[cstanleytech]

95. All of that is irrelevant to what the court decides about the law chervilant.

[chervilant]

96. Yes, and don't we have such a lovely bunch sitting on the benches these days.... n/t

[cstanleytech]

97. If you mean SCOTUS nope. Best hope it has is in the lower courts and that they throw it out and

if it goes before SCOTUS for consideration that they decline to hear the case.

[treestar]

109. If people must do this

Perhaps they could in some way copyright their image and the consent does not have to extend to public exposure.

Like actors not letting their images be used in advertising.

[cstanleytech]

113. Actually actors do let their images be used but you just have to pay them

and in this case it could open up a huge can of worms with frivolous lawsuits over people posting images of others online.

[treestar]

123. But if you don't pay, you can't use them

The lawsuits would not be frivolous because if you want to use your ex's image publicly you have to pay.

Almost anyone can get some value out of their unclothed image.

[cstanleytech]

124. And if the images and video under discussion were ones that were taken without consent I

would agree 100%.

[treestar]

125. Consent to use publicly

could easily be another category.

[cstanleytech]

126. Ya but in general you cant grandfather in such a thing for older content.

In other words ya they might be able to get a law on the books that the court wont throw out that says that to post a video say of a sexual nature you need to get public consent but they probably couldnt make it retroactive without the court stepping in and throwing it out.

[Posteritatis]

57. Because omg the menz are being oppressed!11!, pretty much. (nt)

[seabeyond]

60. yup. nt

[chervilant]

61. That's rather what I thought when I read some of the

"free speech" arguments.

I'm glad I'm past my prime and no longer interested in 'dating.' It's gotta be really rough out there.

[Posteritatis]

66. It's telling what people start pulling the "it is my sacred right to do this thing" card, isn't it?

There's been an ongoing discussion about this in my neck of the woods for a couple of years, thanks to some people who were driven to suicide suicide as a result of the practice.

All the same arguments I'm seeing in this thread - objectively incorrect ones as often as not - came out from the fedora brigade trying to justify what happened as the fault of anyone other than the people who who had a big bowl of Malice-Os one morning and decided it'd be fun to ruin someone's life. Almost always coming from guys nailing themselves up to the nearest cross about how threatened they are by not being allowed to dump photos of an ex on 4chan, saying they should have every right to do so and it doesn't hurt anyone and the target had it coming anyway.

Often as not the same people won't lift a finger or even an eyebrow in the defense of people who are actually being harmed by whatever practices, or who are being denied rights of one kind or another through some silly realpolitik reasons. Buuuut the moment people start speaking against some absolutely evil, life-destroying practices they've just got to man the barricades because, by god, if they do that someday they might get some consequences, and we can't have that.

[cstanleytech]

71. Oh I agree these videos can destroy lives but also people need to really think things through

before agreeing to letting someone video tape or photograph them naked and or having sex because once its done you cannot undo it.

[Posteritatis]

76. What people need to do is not distribute them maliciously, full stop.

All the rest - all of it - is nothing, nothing more than "she had it coming, look at how she was dressed" retooled very slightly for a different situation.

[cstanleytech]

78. Except I can imagine some people using it to setup their ex.

Example of one way to do it is call your ex over over the phone "hey you know that old video we made? Well it got me so hot how about we let others see it and post it at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com?"
Next thing you see is the ex is now suing the other because they claim it was posted "maliciously".

[Posteritatis]

79. Oh, for - ... yeah, I can see this will be pointless. (nt)

[cstanleytech]

81. Yes I agree. nt

[chervilant]

93. Because, it's NEVER a malicious, jilted guy choosing

to post his ex-girlfriend's naked pics on her employer's social media...

Oh, wait...

[KittyWampus]

115. that is so ridiculous I have to post. Your idiotic scenario is easily -EASILY- avoided by just not

posting PRIVATE video on a PUBLIC medium.

Unless two consenting adults have agreed clearly that a photo or footage of an intimate nature might be used publicly- it should remain private.

And in your ridiculous scenario, all someone would have to do is point to the communication where their partner said "make it public".

[cstanleytech]

122. I agree it "should" remain private but just because it should doesnt mean it will so everyone

really needs to think before they decide to consent to let themselves be videotaped because once its done its done and you cannot undo it.

[ColesCountyDem]

82. False equivalencies do not help your argument.

'Revenge porn' in no way resembles a hate crime, nor is it bullying.

I would quit taking naked photos of myself and sending them to other people. Problem solved.

[chervilant]

90. You just keep telling yourself that...

Whatever helps get you through the night...

[ColesCountyDem]

98. And you keewp believing whatever helps you get through the night, too...

... even if you don't have a legal leg to stand on, so to speak.

[KittyWampus]

116. It has everything to do with hate crimes as the law recognizes INTENT as part of the equation

when seeking to balance the scales of justice.

[cstanleytech]

127. They "might" stand a chance with that method I admit

but they are going to have to prove in each case that there is an ongoing pattern of harassment to secure a conviction that doesnt get tossed.

[PatrynXX]

2. not fantastic :(

free speech is on fire here.. and in australia has been in use to take sites down. someone hacks a site sticks a revenge porn picture somewhere on it reports it to the authorities and well now some models are out of work because law has zero tolerance. and the guy is all happy as can be.

[inanna]

3. People's lives and careers have been destroyed over this BS.

Intimate photos of yourself are one thing. When it comes to other people - it crosses the line.

[ColesCountyDem]

6. How so?

You send it to someone else, it becomes their property to do with as they please. Don't want your naked photos posted online? Don't have any taken.

[inanna]

7. There have been many cases where computers/phones have been HACKED

in order to obtain these images.

That okay with you? You want your naked ass splashed all over the place w/o your permission?

It's ABUSE.

[jberryhill]

9. How much jail time should have been served by the person who received Anthony Weiner's photographs?

The way this thing is written, that would have been illegal.

[inanna]

12. You'll have to forgive me but I don't know who Anthony Weiner is...

Gimme a link as to what you are referring to (please).

[jberryhill]

18. Okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandals

Here's the deal. The way this thing is written, a man can send naked pictures of himself to a victim he is stalking, secure in the knowledge that she will be the criminal if she sends the photos to anyone else.

[geek tragedy]

26. Presumably the woman would share the photos with a court of law.

The prospect of stalking victims being unable to tweet dick pics of their stalkers strikes me as a rather trivial concern, as I have never heard of stalking victims doing such a thing.

[Ash_F]

101. Was Weiner stalking that person? I thought they were having an affair.

It seems like the receiver could have gotten busted.

[seabeyond]

14. weiner sent his pictures out

[Skittles]

29. of his weiner

[JI7]

37. wiener himself put the pics of him out there

[jberryhill]

41. No

He sent them by direct message on Twitter to specific recipients. He did not publish them.

[ColesCountyDem]

11. Then go after the thief or hacker, not your ex-.

Yes, it's perfectly OK with me if someone's naked ass is splashed all over the place by their ex-, if they were big enough idiots to take the photos and send them to the ex- in the first place.

[seabeyond]

15. so consent is insignificant to you?

[ColesCountyDem]

17. They gave consent when they sent their photos to someone else.

Again, if you don't want your naked photos posted on the internet, don't make a gift of them to another person.

[seabeyond]

20. so it is the victims fault? shouldnt have trusted that hubby or bf? he couldnt help himself?

[ColesCountyDem]

21. It is, ultimately, the sender's fault.

Once the consenting adult sends his/her nude photos to the other consenting adult, they have gifted those photos to the second consenting adult.

[seabeyond]

22. and now, becuase of this law, if a person is "gifted" they better say thank you and hold

tight or delete, cause if it ends up on the net, they can be prosecuted.

[inanna]

23. +++++

[ColesCountyDem]

25. I doubt anyone will ever be prosecuted.

As I said, our state Supreme Court is very pro-1st Amendment, and will probably (likely) order the law not be enforced, before they find it unconstitutional. I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for prosecutions, unless you look good in cyanotic blue.

[seabeyond]

33. calif passed the law at least a yr ago and have used it at least twice for prosecution.

[ColesCountyDem]

35. That's California.

I follow the Illinois Supreme Court closely, and they'll stay the law before any prosecutions take place-- bet you five bucks.

[seabeyond]

36. lol

[ColesCountyDem]

38. I'm glad you find that amusing.

I'm surprised at how little it takes to amuse some people.

[seabeyond]

39. you are all up in arms freedom of speech you yell. another state has the laws on book,

has used it, proving your theory incorrect.

and now you are on a.... betcha. you just know. brilliant

at least i argued with facts and precedent instead of .... just know they will

[ColesCountyDem]

40. Other states don't have Illinois' constitution, now does they?

The Illinois Constitution provides far more protection for civil liberties than does the U.S. Constitution, at this point. Furthermore, what California has done, is doing and may do in the future is completely and utterly irrelevant, vis a vis what Illinois may do.

Those are facts you didn't even consider, much less argue.

[JonLP24]

42. The theory isn't incorrect

He's talking about Illinois state laws & Illinois Supreme court with an Illinois Constitution. It doesn't apply to California.

FTR, I don't have any position whether Coles is right or wrong but California precedent doesn't apply to Illinois, I do know that. As far as supporting or defending the law, I think its wrong period to share pictures, photo, video, etc of someone else.

[inanna]

43. Thanks for your thoughts.

I think this "revenge porn" is an atrocious violation.

[seabeyond]

48. point is, he is throwing out a guess as fact. i have a state that has the law and has

prosecuted.

so ya, i will take that states across the nation are looking to implement this law, one already has, Illinois being at least the second, and not take him on his word that Illinois will throw it out, as if it is a given.

[JonLP24]

49. California won't be the standard used

when state courts decide to throw it or keep it is all I'm saying.

[inanna]

50. No but it is encouraging.

[seabeyond]

58. yes. i understand that. and my point is the poster was adamant it would be thrown out.

just an opinion. no more.

not a fact, like he presents. whereas at least one other state has this law, which is what i was point out. a little more factual in argument than a guess.

no. illinois will not look at calif. i get that. wasnt what i was stating.

[geek tragedy]

28. restrictions on 'property' are part of living in any free society

"do not publish without consent" is the general rule, and this law builds upon that.

Don't want to go to jail? Don't publish, or get a written release if you must publish.

No one is harmed by such a rule.

[ColesCountyDem]

31. "do not publish without consent" is the general rule-- wrong!

Unless something is copyrighted, publishing without consent is perfectly legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and all territories and possessions.

[geek tragedy]

46. you are massively and completely incorrect on this.

every person retains significant rights over the use and publication of their personal likeness and image. in all 50 states.

[Posteritatis]

62. Wow, haven't seen a victim-blaming statement that straightforward here in awhile. (nt)

[ColesCountyDem]

85. "a victim-blaming statement that straightforward"

It is nothing less than a simple statement of the truth of the matter. Just because someone is fool enough to send someone else naked photos of themselves doesn't make them a 'victim'.

[Xithras]

108. Legally, that is 100% wrong. You clearly don't understand how copyright works.

Once the consenting adult sends his/her nude photos to the other consenting adult, they have gifted those photos to the second consenting adult.

Under federal law, copyright is held by the photographer until it is sold or otherwise reassigned. If I send you a photo of my naked ass, I retain copyright. Federal law makes that unquestionably clear. Providing you with a copy of the photo does NOT grant you the right to further distribute it, any more than Redbox giving you a copy of a movie grants you a right to further distribute it. Copyright is owned by the creator until it is willfully reassigned.

If you take the photo, it's yours to do with as you please. If I take the photo, it's mine unless I provide you with a legally binding transfer agreement of some sort. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504, I can sue you for between $750 and $30,000 PER COPY of the photo that you distribute without my permission. If I can show that you did so willfully and with the intent to harm me, those damages ratchet up to $150,000 PER PHOTO SHARE. That's $450,000 in damages just for forwarding the photo to three of your friends, if I can show that you did so out of "revenge". If you're dumb enough to stick it out on a website and it gets a few thousand views, I can spend the next few decades periodically seizing all of your assets until you die old and broke.

[ColesCountyDem]

111. Legally, it is you who is wrong.

If you send me a photo of your naked ass, you'd better be a professional photographer, or the Copyright Act of 1976 doesn't apply.

[Xithras]

112. You really should read the law. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, copyright was only extended to works that were published (professional) and had copyright notices attached. The 1976 Copyright Act threw the old definition out the window. It applies to all "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Professionalism is not required. Publication is not required. Copyright notices are not required. Copyright applies to the work, irrespective of its creator or circumstances.

Under current U.S. copyright law, and in any other nation that has ratified the current Berne Convention, copyright is assigned instantly and automatically to ANY work of art created by ANYBODY in ANY MEDIUM the moment they complete it. The law only requires that the work be "fixed", or established in some format that makes sharing possible. Legally, a four year old American kid fingerpainting on a sheet of paper has copyright on that work of art for 70 years from the moment it's completed. If someone finds the sheet of paper 40 years later and publishes it in a magazine, they owe the kid royalties and damages if they didn't first get his permission to publish it (though, in that case, the fine would likely be reduced to the minimum $300 per copy). You do not have to be a professional ANYTHING to hold copyright. You simply need to establish in court that you created the image.

If I take a selfie of my ass on my cellphone, I own copyright on that image. It is illegal for you to republish or redistribute that image unless I explicitly grant you the right to do so. If you do, I can sue you and I will win every single time.

You only own photos that YOU have taken, or that the original copyright holder has explicitly granted you ownership to. Unless you can show that your redistribution falls under one of the fair use exceptions (which would be hard to do, given the subject matter we're discussing), then redistributing photographs that you don't own is ALWAYS legally actionable.

Why isn't it pursued more? Because lawyers are expensive, and the old "blood from turnips" rule applies. Most revenge porn is posted by young men who don't have any assets worth pursuing. Most young women aren't going to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to win a judgement against someone who they'll likely never collect a dime from. Copyright laws greatest utility, for them, is simply in the fact that they have the legal right to file DMCA takedown notices against sites that host it publicly. That can help to limit the damage they do.

By one estimate, around 80% of the revenge porn postings on the Internet involve selfies that were taken by the victim, where the victim still maintains copyright. In virtually all of those cases, the person who posted them can be successfully sued by the victim, under current federal law. Whether they'll be able to collect anything is another matter entirely.

Of course, there have also been discussions over the past couple of years about applying the NET Act to these sorts of things. The NET Act allows people who willingly and willfully violate copyright to be imprisoned for up to five years, if the value of the copyrighted work exceeds $1,000. What is the value of a nude selfie? Who sets the value of ANYTHING? Legally...the OWNER does.

[ColesCountyDem]

114. You should really learn how to do legal research, rather than copy and paste.

I do know how to do legal research, thanks to three years of law school, education you have obviously not had. If the Copyright Act of 1976 covers non-professional photographs, like one of your 'naked ass', please find a single case where a court has so ruled, and cite that case here. I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath.

You furthermore overlook the chattel property issue. You can take a photograph, but if you give it to me, it becomes my photograph to do with as I please. Under chattel property law, a non-professional photograph is no different than a brick or your Aunt Tillie's annual Christmas fruit cake-- once you give it to someone else, it becomes their property, legally, and you retain no control whatsoever over it.

[cstanleytech]

128. Here is a question for you.

What happens if we add DRM into the mix and say you txt message someone a photo that you have added some sort of DRM protection to prevent copying along with some sort of statement embedded that says that the person who took the photo retains all copyright what happens if you somehow break the DRM and or bypass it and post the pic somewhere else?

[KittyWampus]

119. They most certainly did NOT give consent for their image to be used PUBLICALY.

[ColesCountyDem]

121. Yes they did.

You might want to educate yourself about chattels, specifically gifts.

[inanna]

16. And when this happens with spy cameras?

Hidden cameras?

[ColesCountyDem]

19. That's never been legal.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[cstanleytech]

56. Already illegal. The problem here though is this law is meant to curb people posting photos and

videos for revenge that they obtained legally with consent and I am not sure if it will survive a challenge in court because of that fact.

[inanna]

63. Legal or illegal - why is this a problem for you?

>>The problem here though is this law is meant to curb people posting photos and videos for revenge that they obtained legally with consent and I am not sure if it will survive a challenge in court because of that fact.<<

Yeah. That is exactly what the law is trying to curb.

Who needs revenge this badly? WTF?!

[cstanleytech]

68. The problem the videos are legal and they are in essence trying to take away your rights to do with

your property what you want and I dont think this law will survive because of that.
Now that aside one interesting form they are combating some of this from what I read is that they are going after some of these sites and charging them with blackmail because of their pay to remove the video practice which I fully support them doing because that is blackmail pure and simple.

[inanna]

70. Well...I guess one can always hope and pray....

that their "right" to violate, intimidate, harass and abuse others will be upheld by the law. Right?

[cstanleytech]

72. There are already laws on the books to deal with some of that like you can sue someone

for harassment and get a restraining order.

[inanna]

73. Yeah. But this is a new law that will totally

shellac the asses of the individual(s) involved - including financially.

(If a profit was made from the images).

Those other laws don't go quite so far, IIRC.

[cstanleytech]

75. Problem is though that I suspect the courts might not agree with that

unless the persons in the videos didnt give their consent for them to be filmed and or photographed when having sex.
Now as I said earlier one thing they can probably do (and probably not have the courts throw it out) is to go after the websites that are hosting this trash that have it setup so that to remove the videos or photos you have to pay them as that sounds like blackmail.

[Skittles]

30. I don't get it

why do people who presumably can SEE you naked need pictures of you naked?

[ColesCountyDem]

32. I've never understood it, either. n/t

[JimDandy]

47. For the same reason that people who can see someone dressed

want photos of them.

[LovingA2andMI]

44. If you don't want your naked photos.....

Online, don't....have....any....taken.

Free speech with my body applies to moi, not a pissed off ex-boyfriend. Is this a Democratic Underground or Let's Support Placing Folks Nakked Photos Online without their Permission, Underground.

I'm confused.

[ColesCountyDem]

45. It's Chattel Property Law is Chattel Property Law Underground. n/t

[Posteritatis]

55. Does that level of naivete come naturally, or do you need to train for it? (nt)

[ColesCountyDem]

84. You obviously understand nothing about chattel law.

I, however, have trained in it, and understand that a photograph is nothing but a chattel. You might want to read up on it, unless you prefer to argue from ignorance.

[KittyWampus]

118. You send an intimate pix that is INTENDED for private use, then recipient using for PUBLIC use

has violates the sender's trust.

[KittyWampus]

117. Sorry, but free speech zealots need to grasp that free speech also involves consent when it comes

to images and creative output from another person.

It is most certainly a valid legal point to say "this was private and not meant for public consumption".

[C Moon]

8. I'm sure it's a good law (1-3 years seems high), but I can't help think that those who will

benefit most are the politicians with skeletons in the closet.

[seabeyond]

10. good. more and more states will do this. hasnt calif passed this law? already prosecuted a

couple men? i think so.

good. our laws need to adapt to the tech world.

[inanna]

27. Well, I just found this via Google:

'Revenge Porn' Law Sees First Conviction In California

Posted: 12/02/2014 8:05 pm EST

A man who posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend without her consent on her employer’s Facebook page is the first person to be convicted under California’s “revenge porn” law, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office reported Monday.

Noe Iniguez, 36, of Los Angeles was sentenced Monday to one year in jail and 36 months of probation and will be required to attend domestic violence counseling for violating both the state’s revenge porn statute and two restraining orders. He was prosecuted by Deputy City Attorney Brad Pregerson.

Iniguez’s actions, including posting derogatory comments about his ex and a topless photo of her with a message calling her a “drunk” and a “slut” and urging the employer to fire her, are part of a larger, troubling trend that pushed California lawmakers to adopt the first legislation in October 2013 against these vengeful attacks. More than a dozen states have followed California’s lead and passed similar laws.

“California’s new revenge porn law gives prosecutors a valuable tool to protect victims whose lives and reputations have been upended by a person they once trusted,” City Attorney Mike Feuer said in a press release Monday. “This conviction sends a strong message that this type of malicious behavior will not be tolerated.”

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/revenge-porn-california-first-conviction_n_6258158.html

It is malicious indeed.

[seabeyond]

34. yes. i have read about two prosecutions in calif, one just recently. all states will

eventually get there.

gotta wonder about the guys that no longer feel consent is a valid argument jacking off to their porn.

[bluestateguy]

51. Whatever.

Will most likely never be implemented; an injunction will be imposed and the law will ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional.

[ManiacJoe]

52. For eveyone not in IL, file a standard DMCA takedown request.

[cstanleytech]

74. Dont you have to be the copyright holder for that?

If so would that apply to say some guy or girl that wants a tape removed that was made after he / she gave their consent to their their current boyfriend / girlfriend to videotape the two of them having sex?

[ManiacJoe]

77. Yes, you need to be a copyright holder for DMCA notices.

By default, everyone involved with the production of the video is a partial holder of the copyright. Guy and girl make a sex video; both are copyright holders. Distributing the video via the web requires permission of all holders.

The purpose of model releases and the like is to consolidate the copyright holders into one person/entity.

[cstanleytech]

80. What if they just gave a broad consent of "yes you can film me having sex with you"?

I mean doesnt that mean you signed away your ownership ? Reason I ask is I know copyright can be..................problematic.
Like for example the lawsuit between DC and Jack Kirby over who owns Superman.

[ManiacJoe]

83. Permission to film does not waive copyright rights.

Permission to film is just permission to film.

To give up your copyright rights, you need to explicitly give up your copyright rights.

[cstanleytech]

86. Interesting. If thats true (and I am not calling you a liar) then that could be one way to legally

get such things removed plus couldnt they also go after the person who owned and posted the video for a share of any money they took for the video?

[ManiacJoe]

88. That is how most videos get removed from the web.

To get the courts to rule in your favor for money rewards and the like, picture/film/video needs to be officially recorded with the US Copyright office prior to publication/distribution.

[jberryhill]

99. ummmm

You have a copyright if you take a nude selfie. If someone else is taking your picture, you do not have a copyright claim in that picture.

[inanna]

65. People who want "vengeance" this badly do not need porn sites.

They need a fucking psychiatrist.

[nilesobek]

87. A good law.

I have met some of these insecure jerks who want to shame an ex with online photos. It was like part of a plan because she told me later her boyfriend heavily campaigned to take photos.

[inanna]

89. Very sorry to hear that.

If she needs help here is some contact info:

http://www.endrevengeporn.org/

[ColesCountyDem]

100. ILCU opposes 'revenge porn' bill.

"The Senate bill was written in a fashion that I would describe as overly broad,” said Ed Yohnka, the director of public policy and communications for the ACLU of Illinois. “Does that mean retweeting a particular Anthony Weiner picture or posting it to your Facebook page? Or if you’re on a weekend camping trip in high school and somebody moons a camera and you post that to your Instagram account? We would prefer a precise definition of the conducts that would lead to liability.”

http://www.aclu-il.org/the-redeye-chicago-lawsuit-filed-as-legislators-debate-revenge-porn/

[JonLP24]

102. Agree about the broad part

I was wondering about the Brett Farve (Deadspin linked to the photo he took) issue when reading the law.

[ColesCountyDem]

103. It's a very flawed piece of legislation.

Putting the constitutional and privacy questions to one side, there are even chattel property questions involved, e.g., when you gift a photograph to another person, don't you relinquish all rights to that photograph, unless copyrighted?

[inanna]

104. More from Huffington Post:

Illinois Passes New 'Revenge Porn' Law That Includes Harsh Penalties

....

“We believe [revenge porn] is a form of sexual assault," State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood), one of the bill's co-sponsors, told The Huffington Post. "The harm to the victim and the way they react to it is very similar: They’re not comfortable going out in public anymore; they fear being assaulted; they could be stalked. You could be someone working at Burger King, and now you’re a sex object.”

Carrie Goldberg -- a board member of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which aided in the creation of the Illinois law -- said the measure should be viewed as model legislation for three key reasons: It targets not just ex-paramours, but also random hackers who aren't necessarily bent on revenge as much as creating chaos; it forces offenders to forfeit any profit they make from the images; and it actually imposes stiff penalties on offenders.

<snip>

Despite the potentially devastating effects revenge porn has on victims' lives, it is still legal in all but about 14 states. California notched the first conviction under its own revenge porn law in early December.

<snip>

"It’s like a credit card," he added. "When I go to a department store and give them my credit card, I’m not consenting for them to keep my credit card number and put it on the Internet. It was hard to convince people they’re the same thing.”

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/illinois-revenge-porn_n_6396436.html

So this is illegal now in fourteen states. I was under the impression only California (and now Illinois) had passed these laws.

[Politicub]

105. Great law!

Needs to go national.

[inanna]

110. Yes. That would be ideal. n/t

[jdenver_2624]

106. Fantastic law.

The people who engage in these types of practices are lowlifes of the worst kind. They deserve to be put away for a long time.

[Xithras]

107. State law cannot supercede federal law. It will be struck down very quickly.

California is an example of a legally acceptable way to ban revenge porn publication. The state banned the posting of revenge porn with the intent to harm or harass the subject. The state didn't ban the publication, but tied it into existing harassment laws based on INTENT.

The problem with the Illinois law is that federal copyright law is fairly clear...the photographer owns copyright, unless the photos are taken on behalf of another (an employer, for example), or an agreement is in place reassigning copyright to the subject or a third party. The photographer, not the subject, owns the photos. No state law can change that, because those rights were granted by Congress. The First Amendment prohibits state governments from preventing citizens from distributing photos that they legally own. The states can ban activities related to that distribution, but cannot directly ban the distribution itself (Again as an example, California's law bans Internet based photographic harassment, and not the actual distribution of the photos). They can also ban the distribution of photos that were taken illegally, because they are the result of a crime, preventing the photographer from asserting copyright.

[JDDavis]

120. Looking at some cats or dogs or pigs or bulls could be porn to some people

Just saying.

How does one prove a picture of my cat is not porno?

Regulating the mind through legislation is more difficult than regulating what I do with me cat.