Should revenge porn web sites be made illegal?

Cardinal said:

Oh? Which fallacy would this be?

Click to expand...

Appeal to Ridicule

Blackdog said:

Appeal to Ridicule

Click to expand...

No it's not. Don't be ridiculous.

The victims of Moore's website in no way chose to participate in his pointlessly cruel abomination. This is the classic case of blaming the victim, and you should be ashamed of yourself for siding to any extent with a psychopath.

Dr. Chuckles said:

well, you have been arguing that it was a free speech issue. Free speech in this country has always been interpreted as applying to those things with some social or political value.

Click to expand...

The freedom of speech isn't limited to politics, and never was. As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts, an act of treason, or terroristic in nature, it shouldn't be illegal. By banning things people don't like, just because it's offensive in nature, we put a foot in the door that allows other acts deemed "offensive" to be banned.

Surtr said:

The freedom of speech isn't limited to politics, and never was. As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts, an act of treason, or terroristic in nature, it shouldn't be illegal. By banning things people don't like, just because it's offensive in nature, we put a foot in the door that allows other acts deemed "offensive" to be banned.

Click to expand...

It's not just "offensive." There are actual victims here, victims who very specifically did not agree to participate in this.

Cardinal said:

It's not just "offensive." There are actual victims here, victims who very specifically did not agree to participate in this.

Click to expand...

Can the drama, you make it sound like they got raped or something. A picture that was taken with consent was posted on the internet. If you don't want those kinds of pictures posted on the internet, don't consent to them.

Surtr said:

Can the drama, you make it sound like they got raped or something. A picture that was taken with consent was posted on the internet. If you don't want those kinds of pictures posted on the internet, don't consent to them.

Click to expand...

Right. Blame the victim. Out of curiosity is your position an example of libertarianism?

Cardinal said:

Right. Blame the victim. Out of curiosity is your position an example of libertarianism?

Click to expand...

Whatever bro, and no, I'm not a libertarian. I would have stated that on my political lean.

Surtr said:

Whatever bro, and no, I'm not a libertarian. I would have stated that on my political lean.

Click to expand...

Good for libertarianism.

Excon said:

Yes, obviously [babble, babble, babble, babble, babble,babble]
You apparently want to confuse that with other issues which [babble, babble,babble, babble, babble].


:doh
In other words, you can not [babble on as a wind-bag like I can] to support your position. Nor will [babble, babble, babble, babble, babble]have been no such violations at this time.

Click to expand...

Um ... no. Your posts aren't even worth reading because you refuse to acknowledge fact. It is a fact that whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright and does so whether it's registered or not. Your own quote of the law proves that, though you highlighted the wrong part. This is not a matter of opinion. It is fact, and you don't have the right to make up your own facts. If you published without my consent a photo that I took, I could sue you and I would win. I've done it to another person before.

I'm a photographer. I know what I'm talking about. I consult with an attorney to make sure my work doesn't get stolen. If you refuse to acknowledge the fact of what the law says, your posts aren't even worth reading.

Cardinal said:

Good for libertarianism.

Click to expand...

Grow up kid. You're wasting my time.

Blackdog said:

The person who received the picture or person who took the picture is the owner unless illegally obtained. I think someone filming you in secret should be treated as a criminal act. However if you let someone take the picture or sent it to someone other than your own media, then you no longer own it.

Click to expand...

The person who took the picture owns it. Period. That's how the law works. Most of the photos are camera phone photos that a woman took of herself in the mirror. She still owns that photo, and her act of sending it electronically to her boyfriend doesn't change that. It was a foolish choice for her to make, but it doesn't change her copyright ownership of the photo. In a few cases, the boyfriend may have taken the photo himself. In those cases, he actually does own it. There are other laws such as the "right to control your likeness." If a photographer took an ordinary person's photo who was walking down the street, he cannot turn around and sell it to Coors Beer company for use in their advertising campaign without a model release from that person. This is true, even though the photographer owns the copyright. For a celebrity, it's different. If you happen to catch Lindsay Lohan topless sunbathing on a beach in Maui, you can photograph her and sell your photos to a tabloid without being legally in trouble.

I'm honestly not sure if the "right to control your likeness" laws apply here to the photos where the woman allowed herself to be photographed. I'd have to ask my attorney. They might not because the boyfriend wasn't making any money -- or they might because the site owner was. However, in the cases where they took their own photos, copyright laws definitely apply. At the very least, the site owner should be compelled to take any of those photos down per request of the copyright owner.

Surtr said:

The freedom of speech isn't limited to politics, and never was. As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts, an act of treason, or terroristic in nature, it shouldn't be illegal. By banning things people don't like, just because it's offensive in nature, we put a foot in the door that allows other acts deemed "offensive" to be banned.

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech also doesn't include stealing intellectual property.

Cardinal said:

No it's not. Don't be ridiculous.

The victims of Moore's website in no way chose to participate in his pointlessly cruel abomination. This is the classic case of blaming the victim, and you should be ashamed of yourself for siding to any extent with a psychopath.

Click to expand...

This is what I responded to...

There definitely appears to be a common behavioral trait between those who say "Those who don't want their boobies online shouldn't let pictures be taken of them" and "Don't want your home to be destroyed by a hurricane/earthquake/fire/Mayan death-god? Don't move there!" Either way it's a cold and morally bankrupt position to take. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-web-sites-made-illegal-8.html#post1061105346

Which is a blatant appeal to ridicule, then you followed it up with a strawman and ad hominem in the response to me quoted here.

Your response has nothing at all to do with what I said or pointed out about your useless post.

Luna Tick said:

Freedom of speech also doesn't include stealing intellectual property.

Click to expand...

This isn't an issue of intellectual property, either, since a photograph is a tangible asset.

Luna Tick said:

The person who took the picture owns it. Period. That's how the law works. Most of the photos are camera phone photos that a woman took of herself in the mirror. She still owns that photo, and her act of sending it electronically to her boyfriend doesn't change that. It was a foolish choice for her to make, but it doesn't change her copyright ownership of the photo. In a few cases, the boyfriend may have taken the photo himself. In those cases, he actually does own it. There are other laws such as the "right to control your likeness." If a photographer took an ordinary person's photo who was walking down the street, he cannot turn around and sell it to Coors Beer company for use in their advertising campaign without a model release from that person. This is true, even though the photographer owns the copyright. For a celebrity, it's different. If you happen to catch Lindsay Lohan topless sunbathing on a beach in Maui, you can photograph her and sell your photos to a tabloid without being legally in trouble.

I'm honestly not sure if the "right to control your likeness" laws apply here to the photos where the woman allowed herself to be photographed. I'd have to ask my attorney. They might not because the boyfriend wasn't making any money -- or they might because the site owner was. However, in the cases where they took their own photos, copyright laws definitely apply. At the very least, the site owner should be compelled to take any of those photos down per request of the copyright owner.

Freedom of speech also doesn't include stealing intellectual property.

Click to expand...

If the person uploading the photo was given the picture or legally took the picture and is making no money on uploading it, they are not doing anything illegal, period.

Freedom of speech does have limitations, but trying to pass laws based on an over emotional subject is always a disaster.

Surtr said:

As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts

Click to expand...

uh, the entire basis of those exceptions is the fact that random, damaging lies about individuals don't hold political or social value, and is why public figures have a more difficult time pursuing such cases.

nothing I am writing here is controversial in the least. It's very well established precedence

Surtr said:

This isn't an issue of intellectual property, either, since a photograph is a tangible asset.

Click to expand...

A photograph is indeed intellectual property. I have a large portfolio of them that belong to me. I have the legal right to determine how they're used. No one has the right to upload them to web sites or to make billboards out of them or whatever without my consent.

Blackdog said:

If the person uploading the photo was given the picture or legally took the picture and is making no money on uploading it, they are not doing anything illegal, period.

Freedom of speech does have limitations, but trying to pass laws based on an over emotional subject is always a disaster.

Click to expand...

If he took the picture, you're probably right. If he was given the picture, you're not. If his girlfriend took her own picture, then she owns the copyright, end of story. Her giving him the photo doesn't invalidate her copyright any more than my showing proofs to my clients invalidates mine. She has the legal right to have it removed.

Dr. Chuckles said:

uh, the entire basis of those exceptions is the fact that random, damaging lies about individuals don't hold political or social value, and is why public figures have a more difficult time pursuing such cases.

nothing I am writing here is controversial in the least. It's very well established precedence

Click to expand...

Defamation law, and laws that forbids incitements of violence exist because they cause tangible harm. Public officials have a difficult time pursuing defamation cases because of the Supreme Court case New York Times v Sullivan, which established that a criteria of actual malice must be met before proceeding. It has nothing to do with social or political value.

Luna Tick said:

A photograph is indeed intellectual property. I have a large portfolio of them that belong to me. I have the legal right to determine how they're used. No one has the right to upload them to web sites or to make billboards out of them or whatever without my consent.

Click to expand...

Those are tangible assets as they are your physical property. As the holder of that property, you have full say over what can and cannot be done with them. Intellectual property laws protect intangible assets, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks.

celticwar17 said:

The website shouldn't be sued but the actual person who put up the photos. In your logic Facebook could be sued because of some random person putting up a photo someone else didn't consent to.

Click to expand...

Yes, if Facebook was informed and/or who had the account was informed - and left it up - they should be sued. Absolutely.

Surtr said:

Those are tangible assets as they are your physical property. As the holder of that property, you have full say over what can and cannot be done with them. Intellectual property laws protect intangible assets, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks.

Click to expand...

My photos that I take with my Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and L lenses are of much higher quality than what someone takes with a camera phone. However, under the law they're seen as the same. Whether it's a good quality photo or a terrible one doesn't matter. It's owned by whoever took the photo. It doesn't have to be a professional photographer. It can be a college girl with a camera phone and she still owns it.

Luna Tick said:

My photos that I take with my Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and L lenses are of much higher quality than what someone takes with a camera phone. However, under the law they're seen as the same. Whether it's a good quality photo or a terrible one doesn't matter. It's owned by whoever took the photo. It doesn't have to be a professional photographer. It can be a college girl with a camera phone and she still owns it.

Click to expand...

And if you send someone else one of those photographs, they too own that picture, and can do with it as they please.

Luna Tick said:

If he took the picture, you're probably right. If he was given the picture, you're not. If his girlfriend took her own picture, then she owns the copyright, end of story. Her giving him the photo doesn't invalidate her copyright any more than my showing proofs to my clients invalidates mine. She has the legal right to have it removed.

Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree. I have seen far to many real world examples in the news etc where that is just not true. If it were the site could have been removed immediately, but it was not.

Surtr said:

Can the drama, you make it sound like they got raped or something. A picture that was taken with consent was posted on the internet. If you don't want those kinds of pictures posted on the internet, don't consent to them.

Click to expand...

Pointing out that there are victims in this situation is not drama, it's just a fact. And putting the onus onto those victims is blaming the victim. Again, not drama. Just fact.

Surtr said:

This isn't an issue of intellectual property, either, since a photograph is a tangible asset.

Click to expand...

They're allowed to sell the photograph itself. They're not allowed to license its distribution. The people who upload the photographs are breaking the law by copying them, and Moore is breaking the law by distributing copies of them. It's really as simple as that, regardless of what people with no understanding of the law or human decency have to say about it.

Surtr said:

And if you send someone else one of those photographs, they too own that picture, and can do with it as they please.

Click to expand...

No, they can not, at least not legally. I still own the copyright. In fact, when I've done a shoot for a client, I set up a proof page. It has each image available on it relatively small with "proof" watermarked over it and it explains the conditions. Those conditions are that the proof page is for selecting which pictures they want to buy. If they edited out the watermark and put a picture up on Facebook, they would be guilty of copyright infringement. If I were foolish enough to give them the full sized image as a proof without a watermark, they would still be guilty of copyright infringement. Taking a photo is the same as authoring a story legally. If you authored a story in OpenOffice Writer and e-mailed it to a friend asking for constructive criticism and then he turned around and published it, he would be guilty of copyright infringement. That's true even if he credits you as the author of the story. (If he puts his name on it, he's also guilty of plagiarism.) The same is true of photography. If you take a photo, you are the "author" of that photo. You have the right to decide what's done with it. That's true whether you're smart and keep it on your own computer, sending only proofed images or if you send it as is. You created it. You own it. That's how the law reads. There is no law that says if I e-mail it to you, then ownership is transferred. The way ownership is transferred is if you sign a contract saying that it is. Most photographers don't do this. Most hang onto their copyrights. If you buy a print photo from a photographer and make a color copy of it, you've violated that photographer's copyright. The exceptions are the rare cases when a photographer has actually sold the copyright or if the photo is so old that the copyright has expired. You can legally make a copy of a photo taken in 1880 because the copyright will have long since expired. If you do it of one taken in 2010, you've broken the law.