Revenge Porn Law

So, the UK has just become the latest country to adopt a specific law targetting the posting of 'revenge porn'. This is typically the posting of images or video of a sexually explicit nature, of a former partner, in order to cause them distress, or maybe to coerce them in some way.
The law does however go a little further than that simple idea. I have seen a few babeshow models already welcoming the law as a means of stopping people posting unauthorised video of their webcam sessions. This is an interesting area as the law is potentially a bit hazy here, and may require a test case to clarify.

This is what the press release apparently says :

Quote:The offence will cover photographs or films which show people engaged in sexual activity or depicted in a sexual way or with their genitals exposed, where what is shown would not usually be seen in public. Victims and others will be able to report offences to the police to investigate.

The interesting part here is "where what is shown would not usually be seen in public".
If a model is on webcam, being paid/tipped to get naked by an audience, does that constitute a private act between the model and her paying audience, or is it a 'public' act? That may be an interesting one for the lawyers and judges to decide.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/29596583
http://mashable.com/2014/10/14/new-uk-la...ge-porn-2/

One is a hateful act designed to harm a person.

The other a Copyright/terms issue, found in the online agreement that both the performers and customers sign. (I assume there must be an agreement because of the transfer of money)

If anyone can put it better then I welcome it as I may be wrong. Either way there's a law to adhere to

^^that's also my understanding of it. though some might try and bend this law to suit their agenda. as munch says it's hard to know until one of these cases is tested and we see what way a judge interprets it. this will set the precedent.

(14-10-2014 15:35 )munch1917 Wrote:  the UK has just become the latest country to adopt a specific law targetting the posting of 'revenge porn'.

This is incorrect. The law in qustion has not even been drafted yet, let alone put before parliament and voted on. It could be some time before it's adopted.

(14-10-2014 17:31 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(14-10-2014 15:35 )munch1917 Wrote:  the UK has just become the latest country to adopt a specific law targeting the posting of 'revenge porn'.

This is incorrect. The law in question has not even been drafted yet, let alone put before parliament and voted on. It could be some time before it's adopted.

Oops. Some of the headlines I was seeing, along with those tweets, gave the distinct impression it was a done deal already.

It is actually being presented as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is going through parliament at the moment. Because it is going through in this fashion, it's progress will be much quicker than starting from scratch with a stand-alone legislation, and some sources suggest it could potentially be on the statutes within weeks, but we'll see.

If adapted, where would this forum and it's members stand on posting vids & Caps? Would we have to seek permission from a model before posting to the forum or not? It is a good law I agree, but I think it would be a law that could throw up double standards.

We have permission from the copyright holders (channel operators) to host the content we do and we don't allow webcam content or members content etc.

(14-10-2014 15:35 )munch1917 Wrote:  The interesting part here is "where what is shown would not usually be seen in public".
If a model is on webcam, being paid/tipped to get naked by an audience, does that constitute a private act between the model and her paying audience, or is it a 'public' act? That may be an interesting one for the lawyers and judges to decide.

It's a public act because anyone could go to that website and see it. It would surely be impossible for a webcam model to argue that they expected privacy when in reality anyone could turn up and watch.

(15-10-2014 11:51 )Glenn Miller Wrote:  It's a public act because anyone could go to that website and see it. It would surely be impossible for a webcam model to argue that they expected privacy when in reality anyone could turn up and watch.

This is where it gets murky though. If the cam session is a private/group, where you have to pay to see, then not just anyone can watch, only those that pay can watch, so does that constitute a 'non-public' performance, even though there could be dozens or even hundreds actually watching?

Also, as has already been mentioned, the site itself usually retains copyright of the material, so you are already breaching that copyright by posting it elsewhere, and there is usually an implicit contract in place when you join the site, barring you from sharing this stuff, so you are in breach of that. Laws are already there to cover this type of stuff, but they can be a bit complicated and cumbersome to enforce. I can foresee potential problems if people think they can sidestep these existing laws and use this new one as a 'quick fix' replacement. Cases could be dismissed because the 'wrong' law is being applied, allowing the guilty to go unpunished, and victims without any justice. A lot may depend on the precise wording of it as the press release makes it sufficiently vague to make it appear to cover many situations it may not actually be fit for, and as I said initially, it may require a few test cases to clarify things further.

That said, it's not unusual for a law to be designed for one thing, but used for something else. In the wake of 9-11, many data laws were rushed through, designed to allow law enforcement to more easily trace and track terrorists and organised criminals in this digital age. Those laws today are predominantly being used (abused?) by the likes of local councils to track the likes of parking offenders!!

^ they have agreed to broadcast on the site and to the public, but the public has to pay.
It is a little murky, perhaps, but it's still a public act. It doesn't help that they are called private sessions, but that's just in a marketing sense, not in legal terms.

With Revenge Porn there is never any consent. They should probably remove the word porn from the whole discussion as it distracts people from the actual issues. Someone broadcasting sexual imagery of a person who has never given their consent is extremely serious and very damaging. Consent is definitely the key word