Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#21

Post by yunohn »

sandworm101 wrote: post #20
yunohn wrote: post #4

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.

>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their ear…

The quote was from the article. Regardless, I’m not fully aware of the applicable laws here.

But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#22

Post by dragonwriter »

sandworm101 wrote: post #20
yunohn wrote: post #4

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.

>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their ear…

> Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent.

It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content.

If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#23

Post by dragonwriter »

yunohn wrote: post #4

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.

> Why would anyone think otherwise?

Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#25

Post by sandworm101 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22
sandworm101 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their ear…

> Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because whi…

To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic". Nudity does not necessarily constitute pornography, else any R-rated movie would qualify. The "image and likeness" standard applies if there is some form of apparent endorsement. If I see Paris Hilton at the gas station I am allowed to snap her picture and sell it to the tabloids. I might blur out the gas station's logo before her face.

Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

sandworm101 wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because whi…

To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic". Nudity does not necessarily constitute pornography, else any R-rated movie would qualify. The "image and likeness" standard applies if there is some form of apparent endorsement. If I see Paris Hilton at the gas station I am allowed to snap her picture and sell it to the tabloids. I might blur out the gas station's logo before her face. Copyright attache…

> To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic".

Yes, the discussion I was responding to was literally and explictly about pornographic content.

> Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject.

That's what I said.

I also said that likeness rights flow from the subject, and that both were potential issues depending on where the chain of permissions do and do not reach.

> You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it

You cannot issue a DMCA takedown based on copyright on that basis, but, likewise, the DMCA safe harbor which applies only to copyright claims does not apply to violations of likeness rights at all. (Section 230 protections might apply to an independent host, but that has no bearing on the legality of the content simply who is liable for the illegality.)

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#27

Post by question000 »

konjin wrote: post #12
question000 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it... I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.

>Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it... I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.

I'm interested now, is she blonde? If you don't care can you take some photos of her having sex? Why not?

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#28

Post by alisonkisk »

sandworm101 wrote: post #20
yunohn wrote: post #4

>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.

>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their ear…

You are conflating multiple issues here, including whether consent is revokable (generally not), and copyright protections.

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#29

Post by konjin »

question000 wrote: post #27
konjin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it... I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.

I'm interested now, is she blonde? If you don't care can you take some photos of her having sex? Why not?

Send me $500k and we can talk again.

Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets

#30

Post by imgabe »

sandworm101 wrote: post #10
imgabe wrote: post #9

Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.

The box office cares. The celebs that have signed multi-movie or multi-year contracts care. A leaked video clip will mean they are dropped from a project, costing them and the production millions. Hate and debate "cancel culture" all you want, the reality is that it exists. Any footage of extreme misogynistic activity will derail a celeb's career. The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are f…

> The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel.

What? Has an anonymously leaked video of drug use ever prevented someone from entering another country? I've traveled a fair amount and gone through immigration in a number of different countries. Not once did any immigration official ever search the internet to see if there were any videos of me doing drugs. That is not a thing that happens.

> And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use.

Again. What? What are you talking about? If celebrities with a history of drug use never worked again, there would be no celebrities. Practically every celebrity has used drugs at one time or another.

The box office cares? Robert Downey Jr. was famous mostly for using drugs when he did Iron Man and went on to become one of the biggest stars in Hollywood after that.

Post reply on HN