Circulating Intimate Images: Proposed Law

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

And how would one gain consent and in what form is legal? The only possibility would be written consent and how many people will do that? If it's not written then who is to say that consent once given can't be rescinded if there is "malicious intent" on the opposite side to hurt (IE: relationship gone wrong, now I can get you charged).

 

I hope they cover the bases here or this could stir up a whole new set of issues.

[PhantomKnight 7914]

I see nothing but troubles and complications coming out of this one.

 

Our country has far too many damn laws.

[piano8950 32577]

I'm actually surprised there is no law speaking on this subject.

 

And how would one gain consent and in what form is legal? The only possibility would be written consent and how many people will do that?

 

Every single shoot I do with the intention of sharing the images, regardless if the subject matter is risquéor not, I get a release signed of the model. Even shoots done for fun. The only time when I didn't do this was when my partner and I decided to photograph each other with the sole intention to practice, and clear knowledge that those pictures would never see the light of day.

 

From my understanding, the law speaks to images that someone has taken or come across those images without the subject's knowledge. With the malicious intention facet of this law, I think it speaks directly to those individuals who are willingly putting images/videos of people who clearly never agreed to do so.

 

Why does this matter on an escort board? Suppose an SP and a client meet in the client's hotel room. As the payer of the room, the client has full legal rights to snap a picture, and he now owns that image. Up to that point, while it's in a definite ethical black area, no laws have been broken. If a client has full rights to distribute that image regardless of the SPs wishes, I'm assuming that the lack of this law allows him to.

 

I do not think this law applies to those sharing images on threads like the boobs/stockings/eye candy for ladies. No one has done so with the willful intention of humiliating anyone, and those pictures are being hotlinked to the original website.

[Raven Rain 10542]

I agree with Piano8950

shouldn't there be a law on this.

there is so much online bullying going on.

I should want the person who was trying to hurt me by posting things that

embarrassed and humiliated to be punished.

what is going on with this law isn't the same on what goes on in here.

If someone took photos of me without my consent or posted them online .

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

I just think there are better laws to put into place to address many of these issues. These are the days of social media and people think nothing of snapping pics of friends, lovers etc. and putting them wherever. I'm just saying that if you don't gain consent, should the relationship go bad at any point, this can work negatively. As an SP it doesn't really impact me, this impacts us as persons and I was speaking, as a person not an SP.

 

I just find our government is very quick to jump under pressure and put things into place that are not well thought out or completely thought out. I would have to see how the final law read but as written there, I can see many loopholes causing even greater problems.

 

Does this type of thing need to be addressed? Yes. Do the people who bully, threaten and act maliciously need to be dealt with? Yes. Is this the right avenue? I don't know.

[Frank7 3939]

I really don't see a problem with that law. It mention clearly that it's the sharing of pics/vids of nudity/sex that would be illegal. Having a nude picture wouldn't be a problem, and sharing a clothed picture of your friend on facebook also wouldn't.

 

So even if the relationship goes badly, as long as you don't send it to everyone for revenge, there shouldn't be problems. And most people don't post picture of there partners without consent if all is good in the relation. If you're an exhibitionist, then taking 5-10 minutes to write consent won't be too much of a price for your fun.

[CristyCurves 169032]

What ever the implications and complications this new law may cause I think the efforts put into creating it will be worth it and it should be wanted. There needs to be harsher repercussions for anyone committing crimes that are related to bullying and public humiliation. These cruel and evil acts are serious and need to be taken as such and punished harshly . The only way to do this is, to enact a new law, jmo.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

I agree, we do need a new law. My grand point is that there is bullying without pictures so this is only one part of a bigger problem. If they're serious about a new law, make it worthwhile, cover the bases and place responsibility directly on those doing it.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Every single shoot I do with the intention of sharing the images, regardless if the subject matter is risquéor not, I get a release signed of the model.

 

Good for you. But the fact that you do this means you're clearly not the sort of person this law is aimed at :)

 

From my understanding, the law speaks to images that someone has taken or come across those images without the subject's knowledge.

 

No, not at all. As you say...

 

With the malicious intention facet of this law, I think it speaks directly to those individuals who are willingly putting images/videos of people who clearly never agreed to do so.

 

It's about the publication. There are plenty of occasions where a photo may be taken with the full knowledge and approval of the subject, and then published with intent to harm. If you want an example, look at the late and unlamented IsAnybodyUp and the whole horrible festering mess of revenge-porn sites that continue to exist, and bear in mind that the same sort of thing happens simply by circulating an image among a peer-group without the need for any kind of central website.

 

Of course, proving malicious intent in court may or may not be easy...

 

Why does this matter on an escort board? Suppose an SP and a client meet in the client's hotel room. As the payer of the room, the client has full legal rights to snap a picture, and he now owns that image. Up to that point, while it's in a definite ethical black area, no laws have been broken. If a client has full rights to distribute that image regardless of the SPs wishes, I'm assuming that the lack of this law allows him to.

 

I disagree (although IANAL, so I may be wrong). My understanding is that a hotel room or private residence, no matter who owns or rents it, is a private place and there is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy, and so there is no legal right to snap clandestine images.

 

If you see me in the street, naked or otherwise, that's a public place and you can take and publish what pics you like (as an aside, most cops would like you to believe otherwise, but they're either wrong or lying). But if I'm in a hotel room with you, or in your home, or mine, you can't, because I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

I do not think this law applies to those sharing images on threads like the boobs/stockings/eye candy for ladies. No one has done so with the willful intention of humiliating anyone, and those pictures are being hotlinked to the original website.

 

The last point is key here. Nobody publishes anything in those threads; they just hotlink to stuff that's already published and publicly available, so this law wouldn't apply, irrespective of the poster's intent.

[redmana2 2754]

Overall I think this is needed. It is a matter of the legal system catching up to technology. I trust that it will be written in a wise enough fashion to prevent abuse.

 

In terms of applicability to CERB, I wonder if an SP who has her pictures stolen could use this to defend herself. I've seen threads on here warning of people posting ads with pictures of an SP from elsewhere in the country, whether it is for some malicious intent or just bait and switch. Depending on the wording of the legislation, I could see this applying here regardless of whether the picture was previously distributed by the owner.