Criminal to Post Nude Pics of Your Ex on Facebook

Remove all ads!

But apparently, only in Australia, which has rather strict Internet rules. In the US, this is largely considered legal.

Short version: This guy had nude pictures of his GF, they broke up, and later he posted them on his public profile. (OUCH!) It was the public part that made it illegal, as they got him on "publishing an indecent photograph", and he got a six month suspended sentence. (Meaning he won't go to jail in all likelihood.)

While definitely sleezy, I am surprised that if you only let it be viewable on your private profile, there's nothing that they can do about it. Under US copyright law, if you pose for a picture, and you don't ask for the picture back, the person taking the picture has the copyright, and can basically use the picture in any way that they like.

Link to story.

 

There's plenty of "meet the ex" websites out there to use instead of Facebook.

I mean ... not that I would know first hand or anything ... umm ... yeah.

 

Should be covered by reasonable expectation of privacy and/or possibly libel and defamation considerations here in the States. You're not allowed to just go ahead and publish any old photo you want to. Expectations of privacy are implicit in private photos shared between individuals and absent any formal consent to disseminate.

Also, copyright would only apply to any perceived infringement on an individual's potential to profit from a 'work,' not on simple ownership, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I think in the UK the law relates to where a picture has been taken, if a picture has been taken of you when you are in private (meaning that effort has been taken to prevent others from freely seeing you (if you stood naked infront of your window it doesn't count as private, infact you are comitting a crime under decency laws)) that image cannot be displayed without your consent, the same goes for video footage.

 

I always thought it was better to send the pictures to her dad

 

LOL!

Well, the article was a little light on the details, but apparently this guy only got in trouble because he posted the pics on his public profile, for any and all to see. If the photos were only displayed to friends, it would have been OK.

The other thing I thought I understood from the article was that the photos were his. (The pictures were of her, but the pictures were given to him and in his possession.) Apparently, that counts a lot in terms of copyright laws. (The stuff on the copyright is right in the article. Simple ownership certainly is not all that such laws are about, but apparently the idiom of "ownership being 90% of the law" holds true in this case.

 

I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, this would be illegal under our privacy laws.

 

I'm not familiar with Australian law (so maybe this is largely irrelevant, ha), but in the US that wouldn't make much difference. Showing protected images a, b, and c to persons d, e, and f could still be an infringement on privacy if the subject of the image had only granted permission to show them to person g.

In other words (absurdly ), if I gave you privileged naked pictures of myself and said it was okay for you to show them to Uncle Lou and cousin Ned, and you put them on your private Facebook profile where Lou and Ned and Grandpa Conrad had access, it could be construed that you had violated my privacy because I had not authorized you to show them to Conrad.

I think this (and the concept of ownership) changes fundamentally with, say, nude models who pose for images intended for publication, because their contracts explicitly state what the purposes of the images are (and the model probably waives all rights to publication).

As to copyright, this from the US Copyright Office:

Also this:

I'm obviously not a copyright law guy (or any other kind of law guy), so make of that what you will.

 

I deal in Import/Export compliance. Dealing with Data and Photos/Drawings as much as Commodities. From what I understand, it is was is "agreed to" by both parties that counts. Unfortuantely, in cases like this, that is pretty hard to prove. So, as I understand it from our legal team, if there is no proof of a "signed" written agreement by both parties, possession usually will win out. But malicious intent, if proven, will be the trump card, though hard to prove. The company I am employed with deals with foregin entities, some of which try to be a bit "sneaky" about our tech data and what they do with it/who they turn it over to. So there is a large awareness about this sort of stuff within our organization.

 

Oh well. Nothing new in a dual standards world where it's seemingly OK to go around in public places wearing nothing more than a thong bikini, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, while a nipple slip in an otherwise decent outfit creates news headlines.

Please note that I'm not backing up what the guy did - defamed his ex - but questioning the point of such dual standard when everyone and their dog pretty much know how us humans look like under their clothes. And in case you lack such information, there's plenty of self study material out there...

Finnish sauna culture may seem odd at first, but at least it removes the mystery part of being naked in front of other people, close friends or not.

 

I think 10 years of hard labour for posting someone else's nude pictures on Facebook without permission is fine, and 5 years with permission or one's own.

 

Its agaisnt Facebooks ToS to post anything sexual and I would have to see your ex posing for you would be considered sexual since its normaly the theme of such pics

 

I think everyone should have nude pictures of themselves on the internet ... granted many of the pictures may be quite horrifying....