“Revenge porn” victims use copyright laws to save their behinds

The case against Hunter Moore, deemed the “most hated man on the Internet” by Rolling Stone, has brought to light the winning tactics revenge porn victims can use to obtain the removal of sexually explicit self-depicting photos posted online without their consent. Moore and his partner, Charles “Gary” Jones, were arrested and charged for conspiracy, theft, and unauthorized access of a protected computer to obtain information in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Moore was later released on a $100,000 bond into the custody of his parents’ home, on condition that he dismantle his revenge porn website and avoid internet access until his trial begins in March.

But unlike Moore and Jones, who allegedly obtained nude photographs for their website by hacking into people’s email accounts, most revenge porn websites are driven by user-generated content. Website administrators are not responsible for such content under the CFAA by virtue of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, even though the Act was originally intended to protect internet service providers, who otherwise would have been burdened with scouring every user-generated post for illicit content. As a result, there is a dearth of legislation that criminalizes conventional revenge porn websites.

Alternative avenues for recourse nonetheless remain available. Seeking copyright protections is one successful strategy. Because most of the pictures posted on revenge porn websites are “selfies,” victims can claim authorship to the infringing photos and request they be taken down. Since the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act guarantees that website administrators will not be held liable for copyright infringement if they comply with the take-down requests, they usually cooperate.

Seeking relief under copyright laws does have drawbacks. First, victims may encounter a “whack-a-mole” issue, where offending photos pop up on new websites as soon as they are deleted from old ones. Second, victims are potentially vulnerable to the “Streisand effect,” a phenomenon through which attempts to remove photos have the unintended consequence of publicizing them more widely. Nevertheless, because victims can assert copyright protections without the headache of a lawsuit or cost of an attorney, those who have the time and patience to keep a watchful eye over their internet presence can easily and effectively defend themselves from revenge porn exploiters.

Source: The Atlantic