Quinn signs 'revenge porn' ban into law

[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.