Not sure if I understand this point. I would say that I do indeed have an exclusive right to my body, and I don't see how that means I can decide where people will see my naked body once my naked body has been put "out there". Them looking at a picture of me in a Target parking lot doesn't in any way harm or threaten me or my property. I still stick with the car analogy. I agree with 3, of course. 2 sounds good as well but is more iffy to me, and depends on whose property everything takes place on. What if I drunkenly, nakedly* break into your house and then pass out? Would I have a legal claim against you for taking a picture and sharing it with someone? (I'm not sure I know the answer either way - but these property considerations are what's giving me my hang-up.) Of course, that is one hell of a what if. Just thinkin' aloud here. *For me, I don't think the nudeness or lack thereof changes anything.
Yeah, this is a different issue than your initial comment on the woman's nude picture being posted by the boyfriend. That was more like a right to privacy issue. I think now you are alluding to right of publicity. I think the wiki page on personality right sums it pretty nicely in terms where the law is on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Again, good points. I agree that the circumstance in which the nude picture was taken should matter in deciding the legality of the posting and I will add the purpose of posting should also matter. I was using 1) to make a point that we do have a legal right in when and where we want to be naked. The case here is of course different than 1) as you pointed out in that the woman permitted the ex-boyfriend to take the picture of her nude previously. If you agree there is a legal right in 1), do you agree that legal right should extend to this case and outweighs whatever the benefit there is in the boyfriend's posting of the picture on revengeporn (which I don't see any)?
I agree with this proposal and think that if you agree to have something like a nude picture taken in privacy there is an expectation that that is private. I look at this like laws that prevent people from recording each other without consent (barring derailing this thread with an NSA debate). Even with this law though I think with the Internet we are in a new era regarding privacy and it is just too easy for information to get disseminated. I said this before but I think we need to reconsider how we view things like naked and other embarrassing pics of us. The stories of people being fired from jobs for suggestive pics that in previous times would've never made it out to wider views are troubling. I think to some extent as a society we have to develop some sense of conscious blinders in the face of all the info and images that is floating around out there about us.
Yes, when you are in public, people can see you. That is why the paparazzi can take pictures of celebs on the beach or coming out of Starbucks.
With google glass, it's inevitable that privacy laws will be extended to public spaces. There will be gray areas, of course, people in the background of a photo, or people committing a crime, or people at a political rally, but I see massive pressure from women's groups getting some sort of privacy protection passed into law.
However, as another person posted, if I take a picture of you, I own it. I can use it in whatever way I want to unless there is a contract to the contrary. I could take a picture of you and use it on a billboard in Times Square for herpes medication and there is nothing you can do about it legally.
You give someone a naked picture of yourself, you shouldn't be shocked it ends up on the Internet. I don't think should be a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Interesting takes ... If you give someone letters, books, and such you write, that person cannot post them on the Internet without your consent under the law because of copyright. But if you give someone a picture of yourself naked, you don't have a reasonable expectation that it shouldn't be posted on the Internet. Seems to me a strange world.
The government and corporations take pictures, video tape, and even records our e-mails and phone calls. Private citizens are just following the widespread example set by their leaders and billion dollar corporations.
This is what is kind of worrisome. I mean . . . If I take a picture of my Ex frolicking in the park and then blow it for a billboard with the words : HERPSES INFESTED w**** What recourse does she have [esp if it is true] This is true Rocket River
It varies by jurisdiction and whether or not it is true. If not true, then she can sue you for libel. If it is true, then in some jurisdictions she can sue you for public disclosure of private facts, other jurisdictions don't recognize that tort. Of course this is the view from 1000', not an actual legal analysis.
What does general SLANDER, LIBEL, and DEFAMATION cover? The common aspect of those is if the action is FALSE, spreading UN-TRUTHS. But if its PARTLY true, then it becomes just "SUBJECTIVE" ? As in: A) He's A DOUCHE - SHE'S A w**** - AND HERE'S PROOF! - Then its ALLOWED B) He's A DOUCHE - SHE'S A w**** - AND HERE'S PROOF! (but it's a lie) - Then THAT is SLANDER/ LIBEL/DEFAMATION Pretty much. I don't see how thats gonna change much. We're already leaning toward getting surveillance cameras everywhere. From Google Earth in the sky/Google Glass on the ground, to home security to personal super cameras, things will eventually cover almost every inch of public observable land. The Boston marathon for example, have to admit having the big brothering cameras was a TRIUMPH of JUSTICE. Even milder situations in simple locales with regular phone cams now even INADVERTENDLY, its picking up on school bullying, helping people incriminate themselves. It does NOT mean you're society's PLAYTHING to do as they wish with you. It just means public space will have a pair of "eyes" on you good or bad now.
I've ALWAYS though that "Kiss and Tell" IS WEAK. So DEFINITELY "REVENGE p*rn" is VIOLATION I'm not into photography, but I know hardcore photographers and filmographers tend to have familiarity with the legalities. I heard for sure you can just go out and people watch and shoot away. And you can even post the material into your own public portfolio and website without much issue. You can even make MONEY off the images. As long as its in observable public space. Its when its intrusion and in private places that its bad. And yes when I wanted to go to a public area and take some "select" snapshots of people, just like knowing "age of consent", it was needing to know what can get me in trouble lol. I agree with all that. I HAPPEN to think that MOST PEOPLE are FLAWED and have SOME "SEXUALITY" element about them. So its not pinning it down to just "CERTAIN" people, its ALL of us. Still I sadly think it FEELS as though its CONCEDING and "GIVING UP" something, rather than just ADJUSTING accordingly. Its straight to the point "Can't beat 'em, JOIN 'em". And letting the pervs win. And the people who are tolerant of nude physical images and acts its generally the FRINGEY group like nudists/naturists, sex industry workers, snooty artistics, etc. There just isnt a good "MAINSTREAM" approach to it yet, BUSINESSES ESPECIALLY are NOT equipped. Still - "Revenge p*rn" is stupid exploitation of the people doing it AND the providers.
Yes there is a danger of just looking at this as we are just throwing up our arms and say if you can't beat em join em. I am not though encouraging more of this behavior or more exposure of this behavior but the understanding that we all have done embarrassing things and for the vast majority of us we like our drink, like our sex and sometimes indulge in too much of both. In pre-modern Japanese culture the concept of privacy was different from our. Living in tightly confined villages in houses that literally had paper walls there really wasn't such a thing as mental privacy. Instead what they developed was a concept of mental privacy. Where they knew what was going on but chose not to use that go about shaming each publicly. Now there were problems with this in that this ended up covering up many problems like family violence but I think now with the plethora of information and ways to snoop on each other we need something like that. For example, let's say a 25 year old elementary school teacher who has done a great job teaching should she be fired if a pic comes out on Facebook of her doing shots while waving a dildo at a bachelorette party? Again to be clear I am not saying everything should be ignored clearly criminal and exploitive behavior needs to called out but whether you call it acceptance, tolerance or even willful ignorance we need to get to terms with costing people their jobs, destroying their lives and reputations over things like this.
Just playing devil's advocate... In a real twisted scenario...what if psycho b.tch intentionally posts pic of her self saying that the other person intentionally did so...and then tries to frame the dude claiming that he posted the content...The dude can be totally f'd if she gets access to his computer and uploads content. There are some twisted people in this world, and a scenario like this is plausible with certain females...just saying...
From a moral standpoint, I believe it's BS and low blow. From a legal standpoint, I can't really see it being illegal. But posting your ex's photo AND her contact information just seems like it should be illegal.
