Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I've been a victim of revenge p*rn, AMA Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    You know full well that sending that kind of picture that it is NOT for being shown around
    Which is exactly why you should not be sending anyone those kinds of pictures, because once you have, you no longer have control over whether it is going to be shown around or not. And once it has been shown around just accept responsibility and learn from your mistake instead of whining about it to the authorities and acting like a victim.



    (Original post by silverbolt)
    Simple decency should be enough that an ex does not share those pictures
    Evidently, her ex did not have 'simply decency' though, did he?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's very ignorant of some people to blame the victim. She trusted him enough to send nudes of herself to him, but he had no right to distribute the picture(s) at all regardless of how the relationship turned out to be. The OP can't simply go back in time and not send the picture in the first place. Instead of criticising her for something she can't change, give some helpful advice or gtfo.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Are you implying sexual assault ≈ posting Nancy's nude pics online?
    No. I'm saying that victim blaming does exist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Nobody ever tells anybody to take responsibility for being sexually assaulted, so your point is invalid.
    Right I must've just imagined it :rolleyes:
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Thanks again

    Last question... can you elaborate why you think this is partly not your fault?
    it is my fault for sending it to him but it his fault for sending it out
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    There is no such thing as 'victim blaming'. It's a term used by SWJ idiots to pretend everyone is a baby that is incapable of taking precautions or responsibility for their actions.
    So because the victim lacked common sense, the distributor should go unpunished?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    An 'understanding' is not legally binding, copyright law is and they are completely different ROFL. One is a personal matter, the other one is business interest. Also, you are allowed to show the book itself to whomever you like. Rofl try again.
    Actually copying and distributing photos someone else took without their permission could be a copyright violation.
    Also making a persons photo public in a situation where they where they had an expectation of privacy could be a violation of their rights, such as rights of privacy.
    And assuming it was in fact 'revenge porn' the person who took the photos originally would not consent to them being distributed and would expect privacy.

    If they post them online ask the websites Admin to remove them, if they don't send them a DMCA take down notice and watch how quickly they get removed
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    So because the victim lacked common sense, the distributor should go unpunished?
    OP is not a victim and the 'distibutor' (rofl, is he the head of Sony Pictures?) should not be punished as OP has sent him those pictures it is now his property and he is free to share it with whomever he likes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    I personally don't think there should be a law on it at all, if you share pictures of yourself with someone then it is no longer your private property, it is the property of that persony you shared it with as well and they are free to do whatever they want with it. You only have a right to complain if someone stole your pictures/videos or took them secretly and you weren't aware of it.
    You're the reason why they should never have got rid of neg rep. Unbelievable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another idea would be to contact the old bill, tell them your a plum and try to get a reference number. If they investigate they can seize any pictures or footage off any device as evidence.

    Good Luck
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    OP is not a victim and the 'distibutor' (rofl, is he the head of Sony Pictures?) should not be punished as OP has sent him those pictures it is now his property and he is free to share it with whomever he likes.
    Rofl, you are so funny, I wish I was as charismatic and charming as you.

    In all seriousness, he isn't free to share it legally. Let me use copyright law as an example, If I sent you artwork to look at, and you distributed it and said it was your own, that breaks the copyright law.

    In a similar way, distributing private photos/ porn of someone who did not consent to this, breaks the law.

    People commit suicide over this kind of cyber-bullying.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Rofl, you are so funny, I wish I was as charismatic and charming as you.

    In all seriousness, he isn't free to share it legally. Let me use copyright law as an example, If I sent you artwork to look at, and you distributed it and said it was your own, that breaks the copyright law.

    In a similar way, distributing private photos/ porn of someone who did not consent to this, breaks the law.

    People commit suicide over this kind of cyber-bullying.
    I never once denied that this incident breaks the law so I don't see what your point is. And stop comparing the copyright laws of a business to this, it's just idiotic. I have addressed all of your points in detail in this thread so I won't get into it again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    I never once denied that this incident breaks the law so I don't see what your point is. And stop comparing the copyright laws of a business to this, it's just idiotic. I have addressed all of your points in detail in this thread so I won't get into it again.
    You actually did, multiple times.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    You actually did, multiple times.
    Oh really? Where? Yeah, you can't point it out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    it is my fault for sending it to him but it his fault for sending it out
    What he did was classless regardless of how you broke up. Nobody with class is going to judge you for sending those pictures, but I would definitely be judging him for distributing it.

    You deserved better than this and I'm sorry your ex was immature and stupid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...-factsheet.pdf
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Oh really? Where? Yeah, you can't point it out.
    You- "An 'understanding' is not legally binding, copyright law is and they are completely different ROFL".

    &

    (Original post by driftawaay)
    OP is not a victim and the 'distibutor' (rofl, is he the head of Sony Pictures?) should not be punished as OP has sent him those pictures it is now his property and he is free to share it with whomever he likes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If the photo was taken by the significant other, since they are the photographer, using this incorrect notion of copyrighting, surely the picture belongs to the partner and not the "victim." Thus, they are free to distribute it.

    Is this wrong? (ignoring the new laws that just ban revenge porn altogether)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    You- "An 'understanding' is not legally binding, copyright law is and they are completely different ROFL".
    And did I lie? An 'understanding' is not legally binding. There are lots of 'understandings' people privately have between each other, none of which are legally binding. You or whoever posted that originally basically said that there shouldn't be a contract for something to be legally binding (in this case, sending nudes) because there was an 'understanding' between the two people. I was just pointing it out that that's not how it works at all, an understanding is not legally binding.

    I did not say that sending nudes is not illegal and if you read my posts I specifically addressed the law on revenge porn and called it bull****.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Arsonist)
    If the photo was taken by the significant other, since they are the photographer, using this incorrect notion of copywriting, surely the picture belongs to the partner and not the "victim." Thus, they are free to distribute it.

    Is this wrong? (ignoring the new laws that just ban revenge porn altogether)
    Yes it's wrong, because it still reveals explicit details of her, so he doesn't have the right to distribute it without her permission.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.