Michael Avenatti sues to stop frat posting nude vids of women on secret Facebook site

[madasheck]

@Auto129

My problem with that is that if I spend 25 hours on a digitial painting and I find out some company is selling it on a trading card or T-shirt without consent, I don’t have the power to smack people with the threat of jail time for it. If the painting were a real physical object instead of an electronic one that can be infinitely replicated, then the police could definitely bust down a door, remove a painting and slap charges on people.

The laws regarding nude photos act as if the victim has ownership over the file that can be revoked at a later time like a like real physical painting. I don’t think that should be the case because spreading the nude photos does not deplete a limited stock of objects created by the person. And nude photo files themselves are made from physical material purchased and put together by the end user. I’m of the opinion that the moment a nude is copied, which happens every time it’s sent, the photo belongs to the end user.

I dislike seeing law enforcement used in what I feel is a copyright violation situation. This thread is about a civil case, which is fine. But the mention of violated criminal statutes in the PDF is that makes me cringe away from siding with the girls here. I did like seeing swat teams invading MEGAUPLOAD’s facilities either, which is where my aversion to throw principle of revenge porn laws comes from.

All I see is another favored class getting to use the police to enforce some sort of super copyright like the music and movie industry does.

I think you’re getting confused about image ownership vs. your image in the picture. My comment was referring to use of your image (aka you) without permission. If the picture is something you created, you have control.