3

This is a hypothetical question about behaviour that would, at the very least, be copyright infringement, and isn't very nice, so shouldn't be done, but I'm specifically interested in the 'revenge porn' aspects.

V is a young woman who sells naked pictures of herself on OnlyFans. D purchases those pictures and posts them online to forums for pornographic images, with no apparent motivation to harm V (though V finds this distressing).

Has D committed 'revenge porn' under English law by posting these intimate images without V's consent or does the fact V consented to the commercial sale of these images mean this is 'just' copyright infringement?

1
  • Since these photos can be viewed legally by paying money to the copyright holder, I wouldn't be surprised if this criminal copyright infringement. No, it is not revenge porn, just like shooting someone in the leg isn't rape. It's a different thing.
    – gnasher729
    Aug 22 at 8:42

1 Answer 1

2

It depends, in part, what is meant (and what can be proven) by D's intent:

no apparent motivation to harm V

Revenge porn, or more accurately, "Disclosing, or threatening to disclose, private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress" contrary to section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which states:

(1)A person commits an offence if—

  • (a)the person discloses, or threatens to disclose, a private sexual photograph or film in which another individual (“the relevant individual”) appears,

  • (b)by so doing, the person intends to cause distress to that individual, and

  • (c)the disclosure is, or would be, made without the consent of that individual.

If there is no intent, then the offence is not committed.

If there is intent to cause distressto V, then setion 35 needs to be considered, especially subsection (2):

Meaning of “private” and “sexual”

(1)The following apply for the purposes of section 33.

(2)A photograph or film is “private” if it shows something that is not of a kind ordinarily seen in public.

(3)A photograph or film is “sexual” if—

  • (a)it shows all or part of an individual's exposed genitals or pubic area,

  • (b)it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature, or

  • (c)its content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual.

I cannot find and caselaw or guidance on the particular issue - i.e. whether or not V's commercial sales of her own images would fall within this definition - and as D's intent is not clear, it would probably be a matter for a jury to decide.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.