18/19, C.Cordingley, J.Fish, ‘Revenge Porn: An Evaluation of the Legal Approaches to an Emerging By-Product of Technological Advancement’

Authors: Columba Cordingley and Joanne Fish

 

  1. Introduction

 

In light of the technological advancement which has taken place over the last couple of decades, ‘revenge porn’ has emerged as an unacceptable phenomenon. There is no established legal definition, but it is widely accepted as: ‘the sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress’.[1] While the severity of ‘revenge porn’ for years was diminished and overlooked, societal views have progressed amid considerable improvement of legislative responses. However, this paper will argue the mechanisms currently used are insufficient and that stronger action is required.

 

The consequences for victims of revenge porn should not be underestimated as the impacts are often severe and long-lasting. The harm caused by such distribution is unquantifiable: victims often face severe psychological effects such as PTSD, depression, anxiety, some have even committed suicide.[2] Given that 90% of non-consensual pornography subjects are women,[3] during this analysis, this paper references the victims as female and the perpetrators as male.

This paper aims to critically analyse both the improvements and weaknesses of the recent responses to this problem. In order to properly address this issue, this paper firstly discusses the pitfalls of ‘revenge porn’ as the ascribed terminology and goes on to consider the various domains of law applicable and critique their suitability in adequately dealing with this issue. In this regard, the paper will make the case for criminalisation of acts of revenge porn.

 

 

  1. Problematic Terminology and the Need for a Shift in Discourse

The terminology coined by society to address, ‘revenge porn’ is intrinsically problematic and the legislative implications of the term are commonly overlooked. Criminal law exists to hold accountable and  appropriately punish those partake in behaviours unacceptable in the society of the relevant jurisdiction.[4] However, these aims cannot be achieved when the terminology both diminishes perception of its severity and alludes only to one specific scenario.[5] The term ‘revenge porn’ is flawed for two main reasons: firstly, because revenge is not always a factor at play in the unauthorised distribution of images. The word ‘revenge’ impliedly excludes image-based abuse distributed for a multitude of other reasons. Secondly, the material in question should not be regarded as ‘porn’ at all, as this is distracting terminology which effectively undermines the severity and it places the emphasis on the images themselves rather than on the perpetrator or the action.

 

Arguably, ‘image-based sexual abuse’ more accurately portrays the nature and harms of non-consensual distribution of private sexual material suffered by victims. Focusing the legislation and, by extension, public debate, too narrowly around ‘revenge porn’ obscures other forms of image-based sexual abuse from public view and, consequently, its redress. Crucially, and in contrast to the term ‘revenge porn’, adopting the phrase ‘image-based sexual abuse’ would cover a broader range of practises for which current legislation does not adequately provide redress for. This type of abuse is complex and can arise within various distinctive factual scenarios.

 

Given the lack of implementation of the term ‘image-based sexual abuse’, this paper, as per the majority of literature on the topic, will refer to the practise of uploading sexually explicit images or videos without consent given by the subject as ‘revenge porn’.

 

  1. Legislative Reform in the United Kingdom

 

In recent years, the various jurisdictions within the United Kingdom have seen significant developments in this area. Previously, in England, the legislation relied upon by victims of revenge porn included a combination of the Harassment Act 1997,[6] parts of the Communications Act 2003,[7] and the Malicious Communications Act 1988.[8] As such, the new legislation sought to provide a sole Act to address the prosecution of revenge porn cases.

 

Revenge porn in the UK is now governed by section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015,[9] which made it a criminal offence for a person to: ‘disclose a private sexual photograph or film if the disclosure is made (a) without the consent of the individual who appears, and (b) with the intention of causing that individual distress’.[10] This is problematic because usually, such photographs and videos are taken with consent, and the lack of consent is related solely to their distribution. In trust-based relationships, consensual sharing of intimate images occurs with the implied privacy of that relationship, in which there is implicit confidentiality. Public opinion has been slow to understand the importance of such trust. Although there has been a marked shift in public perception, there still remains a great deal of guilt and shame attributed to victims. Commonly, victims are blamed for having allowed the images to exist in the first place. This disempowers women and disregards the malicious actions of the perpetrator. It is essential that both legislation and public opinion recognises the situational nature of consent. This concept is well explained understood in other scenarios, for example: “when a person gives her credit card to a waiter, she is not consenting to let the waiter use that card to make personal purchases.”[11]

 

The new offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act criminalises the sharing of private, sexual photographs or films. Sexual material not only covers images that show the genitals but also anything that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual. It therefore not only includes images of a person who is engaged in sexual behaviour, but also images of an individual posing in a sexually provocative way. A significant development made by this legislation is that it creates a specific offence for this practice, and those found guilty could face a prison sentence of up to two years in prison.[12] In addition, the Government has also launched the Revenge Porn Helpline, which has taken over 6000 calls in its first two years.[13] The UK Government has further committed to introducing a digital charter and code of conduct, which could serve as a useful tool in raising awareness and changing attitudes.[14] These advancements should be commended for furthering awareness and creating a single targeted piece of relevant legislation. While the Act falls short with respect to the issue of consent, it remains an example of considerable progress.

 

3.1 Scotland’s Approach

 

The situation in Scotland differs significantly. In 2016, the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 was introduced. Under this legislation, a person found guilty can face a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, in addition to a fine. It is now a criminal offence for a perpetrator to intend to cause the victim harm by disclosing, or threatening to disclose, images of the victim in an intimate situation. ‘Harm’ is interpreted as causing the victim to suffer fear, alarm or distress. However, it is only classified as an offence provided that the victim has not already shared or consented to the sharing of the images publicly. This bodes far better for the consent conundrum as described above.

 

While Scottish legislators were later to act, this legislation better protects victims than the comparative laws in England. The Scottish legislation avoids the issue of the perpetrator’s intention, by focusing instead on his ‘recklessness’ as to whether the act causes harm. In this way, even when intention to cause the victim harm cannot be proved, this will not diminish liability of the offender. “Where the English offence looks to whether a private sexual moment has been made public the Scottish offence concentrates on whether the disclosure is potentially abusive”.[15] Moreover, the imprisonment term in Scotland is 5 years, as opposed to only 2 under the English legislation; in this way, a better deterrent effect will be present in Scotland.

 

Over all, it is apparent that the UK has seen a transformative progression in recent years on this subject. English legislation adopting a broad understanding of ‘revenge porn’ material caters well to the evolving nature and complexity of technological crime, in terms of the images’ content. Unfortunately, no such wide understanding is afforded to victims who created the material. This element serves to undermine the effectiveness of the Act. In contrast, the Scottish legislation bypasses this pitfall by requiring only that the images’ distribution was not consented to by the victim. It also successfully avoids the need to prove harmful intention, by solely requiring the victim to have suffered harm. Lastly, through criminalising this behaviour, the devastating nature of such actions are adequately reflected.

 

  1. The Case for Criminalisation

 

Although other legal routes exist to tackle ‘revenge porn’, these are inadequate.[16] Sexual Harassment legislation serves little use outside of the spheres of employment and education. This category is certainly too narrow to cover all of the complex situations which may arise.[17] Extortion laws offer another possible avenue, specifically in instances where websites offer victims the option of removing the photos in return for payment. The main drawback, however, is that extortion simply cannot sufficiently conceptualise the harm caused by ‘revenge porn’. Criminalisation of ‘revenge porn’ is controversial, however this paper aims to outline the debate surrounding its merits, taking into account deterrence, fair labelling, and sentencing outcomes.

 

4.1 The Argument in Favour

 

The remedies currently provided under civil law are inadequate as a stand-alone response. Civil law is often implemented in the absence of effective applicable criminal legislation, as it offers some practical options for the victims. Firstly, civil law is largely an ineffective deterrent, because the perpetrators and the ‘revenge porn’ site operators are fully aware that most victims do not have the financial means to undertake civil law proceedings. The threat of a criminal penalty, on the other hand, could have a farther reaching deterrent effect, as a conviction would appear on the perpetrator’s criminal record forever. Psychologically, there is a difference in perception of civil misdemeanours and criminal actions. Moreover, cases pursued under civil law, even when successful, often do not ultimately achieve the result of the photograph or video being taken down from the internet, meaning that the harm caused to the victim continues. Essentially, the award of a monetary sum fails to tackle any of the real-life consequences that victims face. This would demonstrate a clear commitment by the Government to treat the issue with the seriousness it warrants and influence the manner in which victims are viewed by the public.

 

4.2 The Argument Against

Conversely, some argue against the pursuit of retributive criminal justice, considering that criminal liability and the subsequent stigma of criminality, as opposed to civil wrong, in no way tangibly assists the victim.[18] This stance concedes that whilst a criminal conviction is, in theory, psychologically preferable for many victims, the perception of a ‘win’ over the perpetrator is the sole virtue of criminalisation. One could argue that it would be more beneficial to focus on establishing remedies that address the real-world consequences inflicted upon victims: awarding copyright claims to the images would enable the original pictures’ removal. Secondly, there is a concern that criminalisation would unwittingly create a further problem by causing the legislation to become overly broad. In this sense, there is concern that the perpetrators may be in danger of being unfairly prosecuted and too harshly judged.[19] This argument is especially compelling in contexts where the consent for the distribution is given. Some couples choose to post intimate pictures online and do so together and entirely willingly. However, this becomes increasingly opaque when one party later changes their mind. Lastly, it may potentially reinforce the outdated notion that women should be ashamed of their bodies and their sexuality. Consequently, the failure to criminalise exhibits the unjustifiable misapprehension and stance of the legislature.

 

  1. Copyright as a Means of Redress

 

The use of copyright law as a means of redress for ‘revenge porn’ is inherently problematic. The use of copyright legislation implies that the ‘revenge porn’ phenomenon has more commonalities with disregard for another’s work than a criminal action, thus framing public opinion to consider it as such. Further, copyright was not designed with the primary motive of suppressing content. Thus, in many cases, it is ineffective.

 

5.1 Copyright as a Takedown Mechanism

 

A significant majority of pornographic websites are based in the U.S.,[20] where there is no real right to privacy as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[21] Therefore, to have content taken down from these sites generally requires the victim to have obtained copyright.[22] The primary benefit of copyright is that the victim knows that if or when the images are re-uploaded, they are able to use their right to the images to have them taken down. Copyright of the material would enable the victim to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[23] to issue a takedown notice requiring the site to remove the offending content. However, in the case of the U.S., in order to be eligible for the substantial damages (in the instance that the website fails to remove the photographs/videos), it is required that the photograph be registered with the US Copyright Office, which involves both the payment of a fee and submission of copies of the image.

 

As such, obtaining copyright law is arguably the an effective means of halting distribution.[24] However, in practice, the right to sue can be illusionary as ‘revenge porn’ sites often ignore requests for removal and even success in court does not guarantee removal.[25] This was exemplified by the website ‘IsAnyoneUp?’, which has a practice of hiding its server, so that victims would only be able to discover the server that the company was using by suing the website and obtaining a subpoena.[26] In this way, it manages to evade real accountability under copyright law.

 

5.2 Copyright as a Shield for Perpetrators

 

Use of copyright is potentially a double-edged sword given that in some circumstances the perpetrator is considered the rightful owner of the image. This is enabled by copyright legislation, as an image is generally attributed to its creator.[27] Whilst this is favourable for victims who took the pictures themselves – accounting for around 80% of images involved in ‘revenge porn’ cases[28] – this neglects to address the remainder of cases, where the pictures were taken by anyone other than the victim. If copyright were enforced in those cases, it would protect the rights of the perpetrator-distributors thusly preventing the victim from achieving justice. As such, any copyright legislation created with the intention of deterring perpetrators is in fact offering them protection. Therefore, any modification of the law in this area would need to exclude this eventuality.[29]

 

5.3 Inclusion of Copyright in Settlement Terms

Settlements can be attractive and effective for both parties in some situations. As mentioned before, a request for copyright can result in the deletion of the images/videos from the website or social media platform. The success of settlements with copyright as an outcome is illustrated by a recent case which took place in Northern Ireland.[30] A settlement was reached, granting copyright to a 14-year-old girl who was blackmailed into providing naked photographs which were subsequently published multiple times, over two years on Facebook. The victim had sought damages of misuse of private information, negligence under the Data Protection Act,[31] claiming that Facebook had the power to block any re-publication of the photos. While the exact terms of the settlement are unknown, it did include Facebook paying for the teenager’s legal costs.[32] This case exemplifies how copyright can indeed be effective. However, it is crucial to stress that it is by no means an effective alternative to effective ‘revenge porn’ legislation and should be instead be framed as an additional mechanism enabling images to be taken down. The benefits awarded to the few people in the right scenario for it to work successfully must be balanced against the harm that is caused by protecting perpetrators and distributors of ‘revenge porn’ who are the creators, and therefore owners, of the content.

 

  1. Conclusion

 

There are numerous inadequacies to be found in the methods of redress available to victims of ‘revenge porn’. Significantly, this can be seen even in the terminology attributed to the act of non-consensual distribution of private and sexual images. Accordingly, ‘image based sexual abuse’ facilitates better understanding of its severity and grants more dignity to victims and adheres better to the principle of fair labelling.

Although the recent U.K. legislation represents movement in the right direction, there are gaps which prevent it being a truly effective mechanism. These gaps are substantial, given that the English legislation will not cover images which the victims took themselves, which is, in fact, the majority of images. Repealing this requirement would allow the legislation to tackle ‘revenge porn’ comprehensively. Moreover, criminalisation is essential for the deterrent effect of rightful association with criminality. Crucially, it affords the correct degree of seriousness. While it is true that copyright provides meaningful redress by allowing the victim in some cases to gain ownership of the image, it vitally excludes the other victims. The limited effectiveness in being able to issue specific take down orders in no way constitutes a meaningful alternative to criminalisation. As such, while improvements have been made in legal approaches taken to provide appropriate redress to the issue of ‘revenge porn’, it fails to meaningfully address the entirety of the circumstances in which ‘revenge porn’ can and does occur.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Legislation

United Kingdom:

 

Communications Act 2003, Chapter 21

 

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Chapter 2

 

Data Protection Act 1998, Chapter 29

 

Malicious Communications Act 1988, Chapter 27

 

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40

 

United States:

 

Communications Decency Act 1996

 

Copyright Act of 1976

 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

 

Europe:

 

Article 8 European Court of Human Rights

 

Articles

  1. Hern, ‘Cambridge Analytica: how did it turn clicks into votes?’, 6 May 2018, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie
  1. ‘Levendowski, ‘Our Best Weapon Against Revenge Porn: Copyright Law?’, 4 February 2014, available at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/our-best-weapon-against-revenge-porn-copyright-law/283564/

 

  1. Reid, ‘Landmark revenge porn cases are a stark warning for perpetrators and social networks’, 17 January 2018, available at: https://theconversation.com/landmark-revenge-porn-cases-are-a-stark-warning-for-perpetrators-and-social-networks-90250

 

BeAwareB4YouShare Campaign, ‘Revenge Porn: The Facts’, 13 February 2015,  available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenge-porn-be-aware-b4-you-share

 

BBC News, ‘New ‘revenge porn’ law comes into force in Scotland’, 3 July 2017, available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40473912

 

BBC, “First conviction under new ‘revenge porn’ in Scotland”, 4 September 2017, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-41148077

 

 

BBC, ‘Revenge porn’ illegal under new law in England and Wales’, 12 February 2015, available at:  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31429026

 

  1. Wilson, ‘Vlogger Chrissy Chambers secures damages in revenge porn settlement’, 19 Jaunary 2018, available at: http://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/vlogger-chrissy-chambers-secures-damages-revenge-porn-settlement/

 

  1. McGlynn and E. Racily: ‘Image-based sexual abuse: more than just “revenge porn’, available at: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/law/research/bham-law-spotlight-IBSA.pdf

 

  1. Mortimer and K. Forester, ‘Investigation launched into death of italian woman who killed herself after explicit images went viral’, 14 September 2016, available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tiziana-cantone-sex-tape-suicide-internet-meme-revenge-porn-naples-a7307041.html

 

  1. Citron, M Franks, ‘Criminalising Revenge Porn’, Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 49, 2014, p. 345, University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1

 

  1. Holmes, ‘What countries host the most porn?’, 5 August 2013, available at: https://pando.com/2013/08/05/infographic-what-countries-host-the-most-porn/

 

  1. Reynolds, ‘Why there’s no ‘silver bullet’ for ridding the web of revenge porn’, 16 March 2017, available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/revenge-porn-facebook-social-media

 

Government Equalities Office, ‘Revenge Porn Helpline Given Further Funding’, 8 April 2017, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revenge-porn-helpline-given-further-funding

 

  1. Diebelius, ‘Woman sacked after ex posted revenge porn to her boss’, 17 January 2017, available at: http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/17/woman-sacked-after-ex-posted-revenge-porn-to-her-boss-6385895/

 

  1. Williams, ‘How ‘the godfather of revenge porn’ rose, and fell, on the internet’, 4 December 2014, available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/hunter-moore-revenge-porn-ruling

Interagency Working Group of Luxembourg, ‘Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse’, 28 January 2016, available at: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/terminologyguidelines.pdf

 

  1. Contrera, ‘Revenge porn’ distributors are finally seeing legal ramifications. This Web site owner will go to prison for 18 years’, 5 April 2015, available at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/04/05/revenge-porn-distributors-are-finally-seeing-legal-ramifications-this-web-site-owner-will-go-to-prison-for-18-years/?utm_term=.67f11574bdf6

 

  1. Irwin, ‘Facebook’s Idiotic Solution to Revenge Porn’, 10 November 2017, available at: https://theoutline.com/post/2464/facebook-s-idiotic-solution-to-revenge-porn?zd=1&zi=chjmwfob

 

  1. Pitcher, ‘The State of the States: The Continuing Struggle to Criminalize Revenge Porn’, November 2015, available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3007&context=lawreview

 

  1. Roberts, ‘No Copyright is not the answer to revenge porn’, 6 February 2014, available at: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/06/no-copyright-is-not-the-answer-to-revenge-porn/

 

  1. Valenti, “It’s still revenge porn when the victim is a man and the picture is of his penis”, 26 June 2014, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/revenge-porn-victim-conservative-man-penis

 

  1. Dearden, ‘Revenge porn illegal in Englans and Walses under new law bringing in two-year prison terms’, 13 April 2015, available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revenge-porn-illegal-in-england-and-wales-under-new-law-bringing-in-two-year-prison-terms-10173524.html

 

  1. Bjarnadóttir, ‘Does the Internet Limit Human Rights Protection? The Case of Revenge Porn’, 2017, available at: https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-7-3-2016/4509

 

  1. Dickey, ‘Facebook’s testing a new method to prevent revenge porn that requires uploading your nudes’, 8th November 2017, available at: https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/07/facebook-revenge-porn-strategy-involes-sending-nudes-to-self/

 

  1. Ellison, ‘Less than half revenge porn cases passed to prosecutors’, 6 March 2018, available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42689607
  2. Kasana, ‘Is Facebook Really Asking For Nude Photos? Combatting Revenge Porn Will Take Some Creativity’, 9 November 2017, available at: https://www.bustle.com/p/is-facebook-really-asking-for-nude-photos-combatting-revenge-porn-will-take-some-creativity-3259912

 

  1. Hopkins, ‘Facebook flooded with ‘sextortion’ and ‘revenge porn’, files reveal’, 22 May 2017, available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/22/facebook-flooded-with-sextortion-and-revenge-porn-files-reveal

 

  1. Ingraham, ‘Revenge porn’ site Texxxan.com and host GoDaddy targeted in class-action lawsuit’, 21 January 2013, available at: https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/21/3900852/revenge-porn-site-and-host-godaddy-targeted-in-class-action-lawsuit

 

  1. Statt, ‘Facebook’s unorthodox new revenge porn defense is to upload nudes to Facebook’, 7 November 2017, available at: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16619690/facebook-revenge-porn-defense-strategy-test-australia

 

  1. Baird-Remba, ‘Women Suing ‘Revenge Porn’ Websites Could Use A Creative Legal Strategy’, 5 February 2013, available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/copyright-law-and-revenge-porn-victims-2013-2?IR=T

 

  1. Pegg, ‘Are Scottish Victims Of Revenge Porn Better Protected?’, 13 July 2017, available at:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-samantha-pegg/scottish-victims-revenge-porn_b_17463534.html

 

  1. Jeong, ‘Revenge Porn Is Bad. Criminalizing It Is Worse’, 28 October 2013, available at:

https://www.wired.com/2013/10/why-criminalizing-revenge-porn-is-a-bad-idea/

 

  1. Lichter, ‘Unwanted Exposure: Civil and Criminal Liability for Revenge Porn Hosts and Posters’, 27 May 2013, available at: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/unwanted-exposure-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-revenge-porn-hosts-and-posters

 

UKCCS, ‘Fact sheet P-16: Photography and copyright’, available at: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

 

U.S. Copyright Office Summary, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, December 1998, available at: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

 

 

 

[1] BeAwareB4YouShare Campaign, ‘Revenge Porn: The Facts’ (2015), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenge-porn-be-aware-b4-you-share

[2] C. Mortimer, K. Forester, ‘Investigation launched into death of Italian woman who killed herself after explicit images went viral’ (2016), available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tiziana-cantone-sex-tape-suicide-internet-meme-revenge-porn-naples-a7307041.html

[3] E. Reynolds, ‘Why there’s no ‘silver bullet’ for ridding the web of revenge porn’ (2017), available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/revenge-porn-facebook-social-media

[4] J. Edwards, “Theories of Criminal Law” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018) available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/criminal-law/

[5] C. McGlynn and E. Racily, ‘Image-based sexual abuse: more than just “revenge porn”(2016), available at: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/law/research/bham-law-spotlight-IBSA.pdf

[6] Protection from Harassment Act 1997

[7] Communications Act 2003

[8] Malicious Communications Act 1988

[9] Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s.33

[10] ibid.

[11] D. Citron and M Franks, ‘Criminalising Revenge Porn’ (2014), Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 49

[12] BeAwareB4YouShare Campaign, ‘Revenge Porn: The Facts’ (2015),  available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenge-porn-be-aware-b4-you-share

[13] Government Equalities Office, ‘Revenge Porn Helpline Given Further Funding’ (2017), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revenge-porn-helpline-given-further-funding

[14] A. Reid, ‘Landmark revenge porn cases are a stark warning for perpetrators and social networks’(2018) available at: https://theconversation.com/landmark-revenge-porn-cases-are-a-stark-warning-for-perpetrators-and-social-networks-90250

[15] S. Pegg, ‘Are Scottish Victims Of Revenge Porn Better Protected?’ (2017) available at:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-samantha-pegg/scottish-victims-revenge-porn_b_17463534.html

[16] ibid.

[17] D. Citron and M Franks, ‘Criminalising Revenge Porn’ (2014), Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 49

[18] S. Jeong, ‘Revenge Porn Is Bad. Criminalizing It Is Worse’ (2013), available at: https://www.wired.com/2013/10/why-criminalizing-revenge-porn-is-a-bad-idea/

[19] ibid.

[20] D. Holmes, ‘What countries host the most porn?’ (2013) available at: https://pando.com/2013/08/05/infographic-what-countries-host-the-most-porn/

[21] Article 8, European Convention of Human Rights

[22] Copyright Act of 1976

[23] Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998

[24] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

[25] [25] D. Citron and M Franks, ‘Criminalising Revenge Porn’ (2014), Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 49

[26] S. Lichter, ‘Unwanted Exposure: Civil and Criminal Liability for Revenge Porn Hosts and Posters’ (2013) available at: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/unwanted-exposure-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-revenge-porn-hosts-and-posters

[27] UKCCS, Fact sheet P-16: Photography and copyright (2005) available at: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

[28]A. ‘Levendowski, ‘Our Best Weapon Against Revenge Porn: Copyright Law?’ (2014), available at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/our-best-weapon-against-revenge-porn-copyright-law/283564/

[29] J. Pitcher, “The State of the States: The Continuing Struggle to Criminalize Revenge Porn’ (2015) available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3007&context=lawreview

[30] B. Wilson, ‘Vlogger Chrissy Chambers secures damages in revenge porn settlement’ (2018) available at: http://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/vlogger-chrissy-chambers-secures-damages-revenge-porn-settlement/

[31] Data Protection Act 1998

[32] BBC ‘Facebook pays costs in naked photo settlement’ (2018) available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42627373?fbclid=IwAR0iM7Ld_C-5t7bRO7N3TxbSCFqW5P4mCgD2uG3WcoiPDziM3M3pxsJ9y9Q

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s