Revenge Porn Is Becoming a Criminal Offense in U.K.

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
If you live in the UK and you are thinking about posting some type of revenge involving embarrassing your ex by posting sexual images on the Internet, you better think twice. Parliament just passed legislation making revenge porn a criminal offense with a monetary fine and imprisonment of two years.

It seemed to me that there really was a gap in the law which had been there for a long time, obviously, but had only really become important.
 
Yay police states are fun! let's pass more laws to protect the stupid please.
 
One obvious question... how would they know, or more importantly, have any proof of who actually posted/uploaded the video to the internet?

As someone who works on computers, I know that people are pretty retarded about storing private pictures and videos on their computers, which often get found later on by other people even after the original owners have forgotten about them. If those end up on the internet, and the original owner finds out, you can bet that the blame game will begin. And of course in most cases like this there will be an ex-boyfriend or similar that will automatically be blamed and likely found guilty even if they didn't actually do anything.
 
Interesting bit that seems to conflict with copyright law, since a photographer owns the photo that's taken regardless of what the subject wants. (at least in the US) Seems that banning "nude pictures" would also trample on free speech as well. I mean if someone takes my picture and posts it (fully clothed mind you so keep your breakfast down), there's zero recourse for me, why? because I have no say in the matter. However just because you're in a particular state of undress now you have full say in the matter.

I'm in no way excusing the schwarmy nature of those who post the photos as a way of revenge, but maybe you shouldn't have allowed them to be taken in the first place. And before anyone knee jerks "love" "victim blaming" the same thing applies to having unprotected sex with someone you at one time love... you're kind of at fault for any consequences of that as well
 
I agree with the UK.
We don't live our lives nude so why should someone have the right to post nude pics of you without permission regardless if you own the pictures or not.
 
Nanny state strikes again


Because coddling carefree simpletons who lack personal responsibility (or a functional brain for that matter) is, obviously, the way to go. It's always someone else's fault.
 
I agree with the UK.
We don't live our lives nude so why should someone have the right to post nude pics of you without permission regardless if you own the pictures or not.

If you own something, why would you need permission from a 3rd party? Brilliant logic there, mate.
 
I agree with the UK.
We don't live our lives nude so why should someone have the right to post nude pics of you without permission regardless if you own the pictures or not.

That is only because the state requires us to wear pants otherwise we are prosecuted.:D :eek: ;):eek:
 
Normally I would be against this. But revenge porn and nudes are not ok to repost.

What if someone started posting those pics of you and expected you to pay 100$ or 200$ to have them taken down?
 
The assholes who engage in extortion and trading have ruined it for everyone else.
 
Nanny state strikes again


Because coddling carefree simpletons who lack personal responsibility (or a functional brain for that matter) is, obviously, the way to go. It's always someone else's fault.
Don't worry, there are US states trying to ban jogapants and the sight of cameltoes is offensive.

Or over 50% of USA states have revenge porn laws. ...
 
If you own something, why would you need permission from a 3rd party? Brilliant logic there, mate.
So you're saying all pictures done in a studio shoot should be viable to print by said studio even if the contract between the studio and model gave the modeling agency final rights to print?

Owning is not a right to public owning is a right to alter.
 
Good! If you're stupid enough to post pics of someone else to get revenge, you deserve to have a criminal record.
 
Good! If you're stupid enough to post pics of someone else to get revenge, you deserve to have a criminal record.

I agree, I think a fine and a permanent criminal record would be awesome.

That way you aren't just destroying your exes' life, you're destroying your own. Imagine what an employer is going to think when they find out how low a scum bag can sink when he or she is all wounded after a relationship. Very few companies consider viciousness, megalomania, a lack of honour, and a total lack of self discipline to be positive traits.

It may not match the humiliation of the pictures or videos posted, but it would sure as hell hurt a body's career.
 
The assholes who engage in extortion and trading have ruined it for everyone else.

Extortion and copyright infringement are already illegal. So no new laws are needed. They just need to enforce the ones they already have.

Of course since politicians don't read the laws that they pass, I doubt they bother reading the laws that are already on the books.
 
Extortion and copyright infringement are already illegal. So no new laws are needed. They just need to enforce the ones they already have.

Of course since politicians don't read the laws that they pass, I doubt they bother reading the laws that are already on the books.

But what about where there is no extortion nor copyright infringement? Wouldn't then be ok just to post stuff like just to cause injury or embarrassment for the revenge purposes? And if not what existing law would cover that? And if it is ok to post stuff for revenge purposes, my guess is that most people wouldn't want to be the "victim" in these cases.
 
But what about where there is no extortion nor copyright infringement? Wouldn't then be ok just to post stuff like just to cause injury or embarrassment for the revenge purposes? And if not what existing law would cover that? And if it is ok to post stuff for revenge purposes, my guess is that most people wouldn't want to be the "victim" in these cases.

If you take the photo yourself, you are protected by copyright law. If you don't sign a model release, you are protected from the pictures being used for commercial purposes.

Just don't pose for someone else, and expect privacy.
 
If you take the photo yourself, you are protected by copyright law. If you don't sign a model release, you are protected from the pictures being used for commercial purposes.

Just don't pose for someone else, and expect privacy.

The people who create revenge porn have a nasty tendency to use hidden cameras that their victims are unaware of.

You also haven't answered the question of what covers photos or videos posted purely for revenge, with no commercial or financial purpose.
 
The people who create revenge porn have a nasty tendency to use hidden cameras that their victims are unaware of.
That's already clearly illegal.

You also haven't answered the question of what covers photos or videos posted purely for revenge, with no commercial or financial purpose.
If the person posting them is the copyright holder, then nothing. So don't pose nude for someone else, if you don't want to take the risk that other would be allowed to see them.

Stick with selfies since you'd be the copyright holder.
 
If you own something, why would you need permission from a 3rd party? Brilliant logic there, mate.

Because just because you own nude pics of your GF/BF does not mean she/he gave consent to post it to the world to see.
 
Because the "victim" says it is.

If I take a nude of myself and send it to someone else. I'm not a victim, I'm a dumbass. Sorry but I'm not supportive of policing peoples poor decisions that don't negatively impact society.
 
Just don't pose for someone else, and expect privacy.

This isn't just about privacy though. And what about having images and data taken without permission? Would the standard defense be "Well they let me take the picture or gave me the information." Then the person with their info being leaked would have to prove chain of custody of the information and that could be incredibly difficult if not impossible.

I think the reason why these laws are cropping up is that there's really no reason for people to leak this information but for two reasons, revenge or embarrassment. And secondly such information is easy to obtain without a persons consent.
 
It's sad how many nethrandrals are against making it illegal to violate someone's personal privacy, and upload/share it with the sole intent to harm, humiliate, and destroy the victims. These are probably the same people who think bullying is ok, and laws against that is a "police/nanny state".
 
Revenge porn should be illegal in the U.S. as it is now in the U.K.

Posting a personal pic of another without their express written consent is in violation of written law. Each party involved must agree upon posting said pic prior to being published.
 
It's sad how many nethrandrals are against making it illegal to violate someone's personal privacy, and upload/share it with the sole intent to harm, humiliate, and destroy the victims. These are probably the same people who think bullying is ok, and laws against that is a "police/nanny state".

If someone could clearly state reasons why someone would leak this kind of information other than to cause injury to another party I'd love to hear them. That's the crux of the issue here. It's has nothing to with the "nanny state" when someone intentionally trying to cause harm to another. That's a principle function of government.
 
It's sad how many nethrandrals are against making it illegal to violate someone's personal privacy, and upload/share it with the sole intent to harm, humiliate, and destroy the victims. These are probably the same people who think bullying is ok, and laws against that is a "police/nanny state".

They are just mad that nobody wants to get naked with them in the first place. :D
 
Because just because you own nude pics of your GF/BF does not mean she/he gave consent to post it to the world to see.

Illogical argument. If somebody posts a picture that has me included in it, on Facebook, or anywhere else on the internet without my consent, can I raise a ruckus? Even if I'm not naked, maybe I have a goofy look on my face, and don't want it posted.

The problem with laws like these, is that the gray area is absolutely enormous. So much room for people to use the law incorrectly. People post amateur videos of them and their partner having sex all the time. Was it revenge? If there is no apparent proof, then how would you prosecute?

While I agree, that actual revenge porn is bad, there's just too many opportunities for any law created around it, to be mishandled.
 
If someone could clearly state reasons why someone would leak this kind of information other than to cause injury to another party I'd love to hear them. That's the crux of the issue here. It's has nothing to with the "nanny state" when someone intentionally trying to cause harm to another. That's a principle function of government.

As I've stated above, how do you prove intent? What if it's a couple having sex? She knows she's being recorded? She doesn't implicitly state in the video that she doesn't want it on the internet? Go look up some amateur porn. How much of that was technically 'revenge' porn in that one party released it to humiliate another?

If a partner from your past decided to accuse you of rape, and go to the cops, who do they believe? It's their word against yours. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people convicted of rape, or had their good name forever tarnished, through no fault of their own. All because somebody decided to lie. Creating laws that allow for one persons statement to weigh heavier than anothers, all other things being equal, are dangerous, and outright scary.

Again, how do you prove that she wasn't okay with it being uploaded at the time, but he pissed her off, so now she's calling in the dogs? There are too many possibilities for abuse for probably any law regarding revenge porn. There's a good reason why there are a lot of 'common sense' laws that don't exist, but really should. Because creating laws that only work in a vacuum is pretty damn hard.
 
The problem with laws like these, is that the gray area is absolutely enormous. So much room for people to use the law incorrectly.


"the distribution of a private sexual image of someone without their consent and with the intention of causing them distress"

The problem with laws like these is that even before they're laws there are people engaging in the ages old art of hyperbole, alarm-ism, scare tactics, and outright fabrication to attempt to prevent any form of legal change that doesn't benefit them personally.

Slippery slope is worn out. It's really worn out. That argument didn't work when lynchings became illegal and it doesn't work here.
 
Revenge porn should be illegal in the U.S. as it is now in the U.K.

Posting a personal pic of another without their express written consent is in violation of written law. Each party involved must agree upon posting said pic prior to being published.

Hahaha... WHAT? what is "written law" please be specific about the law that states that it is a "violation of written law"
 
The way it's done in capital murder trials.

Incorrect comparison. Better comparison, would be rape or sexual assault. Where it's not uncommon for BOTH parties to give differing testimony as to what happened. Don't really have that in murder cases now do you?
 
Yay police states are fun! let's pass more laws to protect the stupid please.
Not a police state really, a nanny state.

Just ask yourself "would Marry Poppins approve". If the answer is no, then its illegal.

Somehow the once greatest empire in the world is now run by idle housewives, and the laws reflect that.

This will be pointless anyway, as it would be hard to prove who actually uploaded the footage, even with an IP address.

For example, lets say you have a really bad breakup with the girlfriend, and she knows there's still porn on the computer and still has a key to your house. Voila, she uploads it, within a week somehow is lucky enough to "find" herself online (an impossible feat really considering how much porn is on the internet), and now she has the ammunition she needs to hurt him.

Its the same as the women that scream rape or sexual harassment when there is none as a weapon, knowing there's pretty much no consequences for using that attack. The FBI for example says that only 8-10% of rape claims are fake, however, it doesn't factor in all the cases where the responding officer immediately recognizes massive discrepancies/conflicts in a story during an interview and the rape claim is dropped on the spot without becoming a case that actually is logged and enters legal proceedings.

Hopefully we don't see more "guilty until proven innocent" applications of this new law and have it spread through Western civilization where unquestioned feminism is championed above reason.
 
Interesting bit that seems to conflict with copyright law, since a photographer owns the photo that's taken regardless of what the subject wants. (at least in the US) Seems that banning "nude pictures" would also trample on free speech as well. I mean if someone takes my picture and posts it (fully clothed mind you so keep your breakfast down), there's zero recourse for me, why? because I have no say in the matter. However just because you're in a particular state of undress now you have full say in the matter.

I'm in no way excusing the schwarmy nature of those who post the photos as a way of revenge, but maybe you shouldn't have allowed them to be taken in the first place. And before anyone knee jerks "love" "victim blaming" the same thing applies to having unprotected sex with someone you at one time love... you're kind of at fault for any consequences of that as well


There's so much wrong in your last posts.


For a start you cannot post a picture of someone online without there consent, also the photographer although owning the photograph does not have the right to use that photograph in any publication online or other.

There are rules:

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/14/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305165/c-notice-201401.pdf

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice


Just to save you some time the key bit:

There are currently no general privacy laws under UK law, but the UK courts must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life. As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement.

The key issue is whether the place the image is taken is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it has been suggested that the right of privacy of a child could be infringed by publishing a photo of them with their parents in a public street.

It is therefore advisable to be careful when taking photos intended for publication, even where the subject matter is in a public place. Failure to obtain a model release for the use of an image will certainly make it harder to sell the picture to stock libraries.


So although the UK is slightly unclear, the European convention of human rights still covers this, the victims had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was broken under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
Back
Top