Personally I refuse to give my business to any firm who calls itself the 'largest xxxxx' mainly since basic probability would suggest that they would be more inclined to have MORE idiots working there than anywhere else.
This petulance by Dentons (never heard of em so maybe it's the US 'world') proves my theory absolutely.
Images of a private intimate, or sexually explicit nature are always the property of the individual(s) they portray, in perpetuity (I think that means forever), No exceptions.
NO they are NOT! And until you accept that premise the rest of your argument fails on it's face.
Images are under the exclusive control of the copyright holder NOT the subjects of the photo, unless those subjects actually took the photo. Where it gets murky is if the photographer is also in the photo with another subject (ie: using a timer on the camera) though it then comes down to who pressed the button and owns the camera - though not that simple sometimes.
Viewing another's private parts is undeniably a kind of sexual act. If we can't agree on this we're denying some pretty simple truth about ourselves.
Again you are wrong and generalising. A doctor views a patients 'private parts", an artist painting a nude does as well. The list goes on. What instead you should be stating is the mens rae of viewing for purient purposes is Generally considered a sexual act.
What I am suggesting, no, what I am stating, is that posting revenge porn is a near equivalent of giving the keys to you EX's apt to a rapist. Ah.. I wondered when the Godwin of Revenge porn would appear here ie: the word rape(ist). Rape is not in any way comparable to what is happening here, and to conflate rape with this is deplorable.
Yes it is morally repugnant and societally wrongful for someone to intentionally post unwanted images of someone to embarass, humiliate and harrass someone else. Though thankfully we already have laws against that. USE THEM! But to equate it with rape is abhorent.
I read it as ", then don't take naked pictures of yourself. and place them willingly on the unsecured internet"
With that implied addendum it is definitely not victim blaming.
Without it, well yes it is skirting on victim blaming.
And though it is an action, (as is the action of writing and voicing something) it's a form of speech since you are conveying a communication to others. Speech doesn't have to be specifically verbal or written.
Becasue posting an image that YOU took of your significant other in the all together whilst repugnant and morally wrong is quite legal since you own the photo and copyright and they agreed to you taking the photo.
If you can prove that they took the photo without your knowledge in a private setting well that's harassment (different law). If the person photographed was a minor, again different criminal already in place law. If the photos were hacked (unauthorised access) again thats a seperate criminal already in place criminal law.
There is NOTHING inherently illegal about posting your own photos that you took online. Though it could be unlawful.
Australia (my home) is currently going through this at moment since a whole lot of photos were posted to 8chan after a phone hack occured. Most idiots are victim blaming, but the other side are trying to ask for new laws that would have so much chilling effect its unreal. It's a real problem but ad hoc measures like Google is NOT the correct way of doing things
And America wonders when they try to spout that they are a democracy with due process laws that people in EVERY part of the world point at your Star Chamber/Kangaroo Court (Call it a Grand jury if you will) and laugh hilariously!
It's also why Grand Jury indictments from The USA hold no weight in English Rule law countries
No defamation is an absolutely different beast then "right of reputation".
The right of reputation is specifically designed to bypass defamation defenses so that people cannot voice there opinions or present factual evidence of proven past events that the person did and does not want anyone to remember. It's a tool to rewrite history for those who have the wherewithal (money, power, influence) and cannot stand that the peons now have a platform to remember things by.
It is NOT about defamation and has no bearing on the histrionics of defamation actions.
Wow you can cut&paste but cannot read the actual tl;dr summary at the top of the article (under the title and above the byline) that Glyn writes.
The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future.
It seems you have no idea how courts are influenced by other court decisions, especially a decision by a major court like this both in the EU, US, Oceania etc. And like most people who stick there heads in the sand you are cherry picking your quotes.
PS: I'm Aussie so calling me US-Centric want wash either.
The Bill is ONLY in it's first reading and this is a report by the senate committee on recommendations. In fact the Copyright industry is NOT happy in the recommendations that the Senate has requested, namely:
* That a specific cost analysis is done in two years time * That it STAYS within the purview of the Federal Court of Australia ONLY (This is a BIG plus and stops any tom dick or MPAA going to any federal circuit court in the country! they have to go to the one ONLY) * That costs will be set by the court (and the FCA is very cost aware and will most likely err on the side of the ISP due to our equity structures) * That order are to be published and show on landing pages as well what order etc. * That all Federal court rules especially ones including those allowing interested parties (interveners or amicus curiae) are upheld. * that the definition of 'facilitate' is clarified specifically in this context not something the MPAA wanted at all) * And that the court is allowed full discretion in it's inherent right to appoint an outside (court appointed) expert into such things as feasibility and whether each case by case basis is actually plausible. * plus a few other minor things.
Though a major change in the original bill that the Senate is proposing that I do not particularly like is the removal of 'must' to 'may' in what matters the court should take into account. The courts wont like that either. Judges hate ambiguity and too much discretion on these sensitive matters since it is guaranteed that it will then go to appeal. Though luckily that will then cost the Licensee/rightholder more then LOL