Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Twitter Bans "Revenge Porn" Photos

posted by janrinok on Monday March 16 2015, @05:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the nudge-nudge-wink-wink dept.

NotSanguine writes:

Phys.Org is reporting that Twitter has announced that it is banning the posting of sexually explicit images without the consent of the subject of those images.

From the article:

Twitter has become the latest online platform to ban "revenge porn," or the posting of sexually explicit images of a person without consent. In updated terms of service released Wednesday, Twitter explicitly banned "intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject's consent."

The update comes following Reddit's announcement last month of a similar ban, which came after the online bulletin board was criticized for allowing the distribution of hacked nude pictures of Hollywood stars.

Have you been a victim of "revenge porn"? Have you posted explicit photos of others without their permission?

Would any lawyers care to jump in and discuss what copyright infringement issues, if any, might be raised?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Twitter Bans "Revenge Porn" Photos | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 55 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dltaylor on Monday March 16 2015, @08:31AM

    by dltaylor (4693) on Monday March 16 2015, @08:31AM (#158271)

    'Back when, it used to be necessary to have a "model release", assigning publishing rights to the models' images, except for things like news photos/video.

    What happened to those laws?

    Lawyers?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:57AM (#158291)

    What happened to those laws?

    Lawyers?

    Yes, lawyers is what happens to all laws. :-)

  • (Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @12:54PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Monday March 16 2015, @12:54PM (#158320)

    I am pretty sure that was just businesses making sure to explicitly nail down that they own the images outright. I am pretty sure no law ever existed to prevent taking anyone's photo, or doing anything with any photo you have.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:28PM (#158332)

      I don't know about the US, but in Germany there definitely exists such a law; the term is "Recht am eigenen Bild" [wikipedia.org] ("Right to your own picture"). Just being on the picture in general gives you the right to disallow distribution/publication of the picture (there are, of course, exceptions to it, but as a rule of thumb, if you are an ordinary person and are the main motive of the photo, you can demand it not to be distributed).

      And it's criminal law; you can even go to jail for violations.