381 upvotes, 15 direct replies (showing 15)
The victims might not even be aware of them.
Not only that, but he specifically said that if the copyright holder contacts them with the DCMA then they'll respond. The copyright holder is the photographer. So if some girl's ex boyfriend took nudes of her and posted them, and even if the girl finds out and sends in a take down request, she's not the copyright holder, he is, and therefore she can't legally make the request.
Edit: I think a bigger part of FapGate is that a lot of us see reddit as kind of internet heroes who should stand up against things like DMCA take downs.
Comment by AchillesWay at 07/09/2014 at 09:08 UTC
107 upvotes, 12 direct replies
If that's true that's pretty fucked up. Sure the girl in the photo might have given consent for the photo to be taken (when they were a couple) but she (I'm guessing) didn't give consent to that photo being uploaded to a public domain. Why would she have no say? Or is it no say purely on a copyrights ground?
Comment by Adderkleet at 07/09/2014 at 09:33 UTC
9 upvotes, 2 direct replies
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another
Not quite. You do have rights to your likeness, and DMCA is not a "proof of ownership"; it's "I claim to own this, and you'll need to accept that or we'll sue you".
Comment by rushworld at 07/09/2014 at 09:12 UTC
16 upvotes, 0 direct replies
She can make the request. Reddit can take it down. The boyfriend can appeal the DCMA takedown and provide evidence and Reddit would put it back up.
It's a law and has its processes!
Comment by ahruss at 07/09/2014 at 09:11 UTC
23 upvotes, 6 direct replies
If the person posting the photos is the copyright holder, and the subject is over the age of 18, then that is not illegal activity. It's arguably immoral, but not illegal.
Comment by Stuck_In_the_Matrix at 07/09/2014 at 09:32 UTC
46 upvotes, 1 direct replies
All she has to say is "I was 17 when the photo was taken." I'm pretty sure they'll take it down without questions.
Comment by filologo at 07/09/2014 at 15:02 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Many states have laws against revenge porn. The copyright issues are not as relevant now as they might have been before.
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 17:24 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So if some girl's ex boyfriend took nudes of her and posted them, and even if the girl finds out and sends in a take down request, she's not the copyright holder, he is, and therefore she can't legally make the request.
Yeah, but it's never going to get to that point. If she sends the form, it will be taken down. Reddit admins aren't going to make the person prove it's 100% legally theirs. They're just not going to fuck around and will remove it to be certain.
Comment by evileyeball at 07/09/2014 at 11:51 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This happened to a guy whos camera was stolen by a monkey and used to take a selfie.
He wanted the picture taken down from Wikipedia but Wikimedia says that the picture is public domain because The monkey took it and monkeys can't hold copyright on anything so it's public domain and they can use it.
He claims that it's his camera so He holds the copyright even though he was not the user of the camera.
Comment by oscar_the_couch at 07/09/2014 at 21:09 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The copyright holder is the photographer.
Unclear in the Ninth Circuit with Garcia v. Google. The girl depicted would almost certainly, in the Ninth Circuit at least, have a decent copyright claim.
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 10:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
That's the same reason celebrity nip slips and crotch shots are all over the internet and reddit, yet I don't hear anyone complaining about it until now when they can use it as some sort of ammunition. They've made it clear that they only remove things based on legality and that they try to avoid removing things based on any sort of moral or ethical code. It's good business practice and they've been consistent in that sense... whether they masquerade it as some sort of moral revelation is different and irrelevant but that doesn't even seem to be your issue.
If your problem is Copyright rules go try and change that don't blame it on reddit.
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 14:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So why is Maroney not charged with distributing CP?
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 18:07 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So if some girl's ex boyfriend took nudes of her and posted them, and even if the girl finds out and sends in a take down request, she's not the copyright holder, he is, and therefore she can't legally make the request.
The photo is available in states where revenge porn is illegal, so yes, she can make the request.
Comment by strallus at 07/09/2014 at 20:33 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Considering the fact that the redistribution of photos:
1. not taken in public
2. with individuals who have not given explicit written consent
is not legally defensible, I'd have to say that you are wrong.
Comment by ICanBeAnyone at 07/09/2014 at 10:03 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You require model consent to be able to publish pictures, or is this different in the us?
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 09:07 UTC
-4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835