Consent

**foxbat1** · August 2nd, 2023, 02:16 PM

I've noticed that there are occasionally some posts here that seem to be made without the consent of the subject. Sometimes there is a "public interest" defence, which is what newspapers use to publish photos that people wouldn't want published.

Sometimes though they are things like images stolen from people's phones, or taken by paparazzi with a long lens. Things that the subject very clearly did not consent to. Some even show non-consensual sexual contact.

I appreciate that sometimes it's a judgement call. For example, the lead actress in Deep Throat has said that the movie was non-consensual after the fact. But other times, like with stolen iCloud images, it's fairly clear.

I'm sure most of us want to be respectful of the women we admire, and the vast majority of content does so. But should we maybe consider thinking again about stuff where it might be causing them some harm?

**JeffSav** · August 3rd, 2023, 05:30 AM

The UK law is pretty clear on this for some of the issues that you’ve raised, foxbat1.

If a person, paparazzi or otherwise, is on public property, they can photograph anything or any person that they can see from there, including people on private property, with any type of lens.

They don’t need the subject’s consent consent for that. I understand the US law is the same.

Okay, if they photographed someone in a house through a window, it might be different, but probably not.

Stealing images from phones - yeah, I agree that’s different.

On the other hand, if it’s celebrities that are the subject, most seem to be desperate for publicity, which is probably why there aren’t many court cases against photographers.

**foxbat1** · August 3rd, 2023, 08:23 AM

That's true about UK law, although I still think it's worth considering if we want "it's not actually illegal" to be the baseline here.

Also worth noting that even in public some forms of photography are illegal, or there are effort to make them illegal, like up-skirting. That's a favourite of the Paparazzi.

**JeffSav** · August 3rd, 2023, 09:32 AM

Yes, the moral issue is at variance with the law in this and probably lots of other issues.

Much of the UK paparazzi will take pictures that they know will sell, i.e. ones that the public want to see, including the up-skirt ones.

I certainly can’t take the moral high-ground on this matter, since I post pictures on this site of models, one of whom I know for certain doesn’t want the mens-magazine type to be seen here or anywhere else. I expect a good percentage of former models who feature on this site would feel the same.

But without those pictures, this site would be a lot smaller, if it existed at all.

Models don’t own the copyright - so that’s the legal side dealt with. As for the moral side…… well, I’m not in any good position to comment on that.

**foxbat1** · August 3rd, 2023, 11:04 AM

I'm more concerned about the more clear cut cases, where the photo was originally made without consent, or where they were only acquired by theft.

It's possible that the law may make some of the content here illegal anyway, like up-skirting. It already has happened in the past, such as changing the age of consent for topless photos from 16 to 18, which made many Page 3 images illegal to repost.

But I think beyond what is legal, there is a very clear moral case for not allowing stolen photos.

**JeffSav** · August 3rd, 2023, 12:00 PM

I might be wrong about this, but I think the up-skirting UK law applies to the person who actually takes the pictures/videos. If someone finds the pictures/videos on another site and re-posts them here, I don’t think they have broken the law and therefore the content is not in itself illegal. I’m not certain of that though.

In some US states, up-skirting is totally legal; in others, not. Morally, though…..

Is it illegal to post pictures of a Page 3 model who was 16 or 17 when she agreed to the pictures and that was at a time before the law was changed to 18+? I know that they aren’t allowed on this forum and I agree that they shouldn’t be, anywhere, but illegal? I don’t know - we need a legal expert here.

As for stolen pictures, by hacking someone’s iCloud account, for example, I totally agree with you and I think that’s disgusting and the law should deal harshly with that offence (offense in the US). And yes, it’s morally abhorrent, as well, in my opinion.

**foxbat1** · August 3rd, 2023, 12:42 PM

It's not legal to post photos of a 16/17 year old, even if they were taken when it was legal. The legality of even owning old copies of those newspapers is questionable. Obviously libraries keep them in their archives, as presumably do the newspapers themselves. I think it's one of those cases of technically illegal but unlikely to interest the police.

Perhaps one of the moderators can comment on what seems to be the least controversial and easiest bit: stolen photos from phones and iCloud accounts.

**Alfac** · August 3rd, 2023, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxbat1

Perhaps one of the moderators can comment on what seems to be the least controversial and easiest bit: stolen photos from phones and iCloud accounts.

Is there a worldwide database of every photograph which has been proven to have been stolen the mods can refer to, seeing as they are only volunteers, and not connected to law enforcement?

**foxbat1** · August 3rd, 2023, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfac

Is there a worldwide database of every photograph which has been proven to have been stolen the mods can refer to, seeing as they are only volunteers, and not connected to law enforcement?

No, but some are well known to be stolen. Either the victim has come forward to state that they were, or they were released as part of the mass iCloud hacking that went on a few years ago.

**Alfac** · August 3rd, 2023, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxbat1

No, but some are well known to be stolen. Either the victim has come forward to state that they were, or they were released as part of the mass iCloud hacking that went on a few years ago.

The first part of the statement on the DMCA FAQ page perhaps has relevance here:

Quote:

This website does not host any content, we provide a platform for social interaction via text input only,

VEF does not actually hold any of the disputed images, as evidenced by the number of missing images on threads when the hosting site removes them, so any pictures you see on the threads are only links to content held elsewhere.

This is different to the press where a picture does not disappear from a newspaper just because the original host site deleted it: it is a permanent record held on that sheet of paper. Well, as permanent as newsprint can be anyway.

There are routes by which links to disputed material can be removed though: the DMCA page outlines the official route, and Mods can remove any post they feel contravenes the rules, of which one is

Quote:

invading the privacy of others by posting personal data, pictures, information from Facebook, MSN, etc.

August 2nd, 2023, 02:16 PM	#1
foxbat1 Vintage Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 14,016 Thanks: 11,833 Thanked 39,542 Times in 12,733 Posts	Consent I've noticed that there are occasionally some posts here that seem to be made without the consent of the subject. Sometimes there is a "public interest" defence, which is what newspapers use to publish photos that people wouldn't want published. Sometimes though they are things like images stolen from people's phones, or taken by paparazzi with a long lens. Things that the subject very clearly did not consent to. Some even show non-consensual sexual contact. I appreciate that sometimes it's a judgement call. For example, the lead actress in Deep Throat has said that the movie was non-consensual after the fact. But other times, like with stolen iCloud images, it's fairly clear. I'm sure most of us want to be respectful of the women we admire, and the vast majority of content does so. But should we maybe consider thinking again about stuff where it might be causing them some harm?

August 3rd, 2023, 05:30 AM	#2
JeffSav Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: VPN dependent variable Posts: 638 Thanks: 5,179 Thanked 19,302 Times in 649 Posts	The UK law is pretty clear on this for some of the issues that you’ve raised, foxbat1. If a person, paparazzi or otherwise, is on public property, they can photograph anything or any person that they can see from there, including people on private property, with any type of lens. They don’t need the subject’s consent consent for that. I understand the US law is the same. Okay, if they photographed someone in a house through a window, it might be different, but probably not. Stealing images from phones - yeah, I agree that’s different. On the other hand, if it’s celebrities that are the subject, most seem to be desperate for publicity, which is probably why there aren’t many court cases against photographers. __________________ I've updated all the video links in the Susanna Francessca thread. If any of them do not work, please PM me and I'll fix them.

August 3rd, 2023, 09:32 AM	#4
JeffSav Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: VPN dependent variable Posts: 638 Thanks: 5,179 Thanked 19,302 Times in 649 Posts	Yes, the moral issue is at variance with the law in this and probably lots of other issues. Much of the UK paparazzi will take pictures that they know will sell, i.e. ones that the public want to see, including the up-skirt ones. I certainly can’t take the moral high-ground on this matter, since I post pictures on this site of models, one of whom I know for certain doesn’t want the mens-magazine type to be seen here or anywhere else. I expect a good percentage of former models who feature on this site would feel the same. But without those pictures, this site would be a lot smaller, if it existed at all. Models don’t own the copyright - so that’s the legal side dealt with. As for the moral side…… well, I’m not in any good position to comment on that. __________________ I've updated all the video links in the Susanna Francessca thread. If any of them do not work, please PM me and I'll fix them.

August 3rd, 2023, 12:00 PM	#6
JeffSav Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: VPN dependent variable Posts: 638 Thanks: 5,179 Thanked 19,302 Times in 649 Posts	I might be wrong about this, but I think the up-skirting UK law applies to the person who actually takes the pictures/videos. If someone finds the pictures/videos on another site and re-posts them here, I don’t think they have broken the law and therefore the content is not in itself illegal. I’m not certain of that though. In some US states, up-skirting is totally legal; in others, not. Morally, though….. Is it illegal to post pictures of a Page 3 model who was 16 or 17 when she agreed to the pictures and that was at a time before the law was changed to 18+? I know that they aren’t allowed on this forum and I agree that they shouldn’t be, anywhere, but illegal? I don’t know - we need a legal expert here. As for stolen pictures, by hacking someone’s iCloud account, for example, I totally agree with you and I think that’s disgusting and the law should deal harshly with that offence (offense in the US). And yes, it’s morally abhorrent, as well, in my opinion. __________________ I've updated all the video links in the Susanna Francessca thread. If any of them do not work, please PM me and I'll fix them.

August 3rd, 2023, 08:23 AM	#3
foxbat1 Vintage Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 14,016 Thanks: 11,833 Thanked 39,542 Times in 12,733 Posts	That's true about UK law, although I still think it's worth considering if we want "it's not actually illegal" to be the baseline here. Also worth noting that even in public some forms of photography are illegal, or there are effort to make them illegal, like up-skirting. That's a favourite of the Paparazzi.

August 3rd, 2023, 11:04 AM	#5
foxbat1 Vintage Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 14,016 Thanks: 11,833 Thanked 39,542 Times in 12,733 Posts	I'm more concerned about the more clear cut cases, where the photo was originally made without consent, or where they were only acquired by theft. It's possible that the law may make some of the content here illegal anyway, like up-skirting. It already has happened in the past, such as changing the age of consent for topless photos from 16 to 18, which made many Page 3 images illegal to repost. But I think beyond what is legal, there is a very clear moral case for not allowing stolen photos.

August 3rd, 2023, 12:42 PM	#7
foxbat1 Vintage Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 14,016 Thanks: 11,833 Thanked 39,542 Times in 12,733 Posts	It's not legal to post photos of a 16/17 year old, even if they were taken when it was legal. The legality of even owning old copies of those newspapers is questionable. Obviously libraries keep them in their archives, as presumably do the newspapers themselves. I think it's one of those cases of technically illegal but unlikely to interest the police. Perhaps one of the moderators can comment on what seems to be the least controversial and easiest bit: stolen photos from phones and iCloud accounts.