A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[YorkNecromancer]

That's what I thought at the time. I don't think that way any more; I think I'm just older and more assured. I hope I'd be brave enough to speak out. But thank you for your kindess.

In unrelated news, this article:
[url]http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-click-on-the-naked-photos-of-jennifer-lawrence-20140901-3eo6s.html[/url]

Seriously, there needs to be a law about posting nude/sexual/private/stolen pictures of people without their consent, celebrity or not; it should be classed as a form of sexual assault and have serious jail time attached.

[Kirsten]

perhaps somebody more versed in law than me will comment here, but I don't understand why photos generally do not remain the property of the subject without express consent from the person being photographed. when I was at school we met journalists a few times for various projects etc. and each time they took a photo for the paper, they needed written permission to publish. if that is not still the case, why not? it would allow prosecutions for revenge porn, these leaked photos, paparazzi nuisances...

[Psychosplodge]

I read that the actress who plays Ramona Flowers had deleted the photos of herself a long time ago, so this is not just somebody hacking an account and taking them, but doing some serious hunting and recovery of them.

You deleting them on a cloud doesn't mean they're gone from the server, there's been all sorts of examples in the media in past of facebook still retaining images users had deleted, you're just deleting your access to it.
And I think I read somewhere that if you write a comment on someones wall or in your status and delte rather than publish, fb retains that comment anyway.

perhaps somebody more versed in law than me will comment here, but I don't understand why photos generally do not remain the property of the subject without express consent from the person being photographed. when I was at school we met journalists a few times for various projects etc. and each time they took a photo for the paper, they needed written permission to publish. if that is not still the case, why not? it would allow prosecutions for revenge porn, these leaked photos, paparazzi nuisances...

probably as you were underage, we were taught(media studies(it was that or drama or art)) any photo is the property of the photographer, release forms are generally more of an arse covering exercise.

[Wildeybeast]

As a teacher, I can add something to the minors photos thing. We can't take or use photos of the kids without express permission of the parents. We get round this by asking them all for ongoing permission when the kids first join school. It gets complicated when outside agencies are involved. If the photos are for use in school/by parents then we are ok, if a company is going to use them for their own purposes outside school (say Toyota using them to publicise it's work on projects in our school) then they need to get permission from the parents.

I dont think there are any specific laws covering the use of photos of adults. I would imagine you can only stop them if they were involved in invasion of privacy or used for commercial purposes. Like splodgie says, they usually remain the property of the person taking them, which is why wedding photographers are a massive rip off. You pay them a small fortune for taking the photos and you don't even get to own them at the end of it.

[Wolfshade]

Wildey is exactly right here, the minor issue can cause problems, but it is better safe than sorry.

As splogy says, the photographer is the legal owner of the picture, not the subject (indeed there was an [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-28674167"]argument over who owned the rights to a monkey "selfie"[/URL])

You may photograph/image/record anything in the "public domain" ([URL="http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv"]CCTV is a slight variation of this as it falls into the DPA[/URL], why it does and other things don't I am not sure), that is if I can take a photograph of it from the road or other public spaces then that is perfectly legal. Indeed, just being in your own property (or other private location) does not necessarily make you immune. If you walked around your house naked, while that is well within your right, if you could easily be seen through downstairs windows by passers-by you could still be found to be "indecent" and if you lived near a school something even worse.

The trouble then comes with what is reasonable. If I am sunbathing naked in my private grounds a mile away from any public spaces i would expect that I should not have photographs of me appearing about, however, what with camera lenses that can see that far it might not be enough ([URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535"]indeed this is what the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge were complaining about not too long ago[/URL]) and that is without taking into consideration about who owns the air above a location and whether or not that that is private or public with the advent of "media" drones.

[eldargal]

Most of these leaked photos are selfies as I understand it, so going by the monkey picture precedent (subject owns selfies 'cos they are the photographer, animals can't hold copyright, so monkey selfie is public domain) surely that would mean whoever publishes the pictures without permission is breaking the law?

[Wolfshade]

Essentially yes. Though if they were photos taken with her phone and not by her then that raises a question.

Unless the owner has given permission to wave any rights associated with it.

- - - Updated - - -

More over, if these have been hacked, then there are various laws associated with that which have been broken. If the images are deleted and have not been then (if it were in the UK at least) there would be concerns that the Data Protection Act would have been broken (usually these are fairly standard internationally).

The problem with enforcement on the interenet is an issue of jurisdiction. Where did the crime actually take place, and therefore who is responsible.

If I uploaded a film illegaly to a sharing site, where did the crime occur? Where I am located up-loading the film, where the server is physically located, where the company that owns the server is located?

Because of this it can be a bit of a nightmare. Similiarly, if you download said film where is the crime committed, where you are located, where the server &/or company, where your isp resides?

[Psychosplodge]

Most of these leaked photos are selfies as I understand it, so going by the monkey picture precedent (subject owns selfies 'cos they are the photographer, animals can't hold copyright, so monkey selfie is public domain) surely that would mean whoever publishes the pictures without permission is breaking the law?

That's probably the reason image sharing sites like imgur are actually removing them

[eldargal]

Good.

[Psychosplodge]

see[URL="http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/topless-celebrities#408uzvy"] topless pictures[/URL] work when done corectly