Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:08:46.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using IP rights to protect human rights: copyright for ‘revenge porn’ removal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2020

Aislinn O'Connell Open the ORCID record for Aislinn O'Connell [Opens in a new window]  and
Ksenia Bakina
Aislinn O'Connell*
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK
Ksenia Bakina
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Revenge pornography’ is a concept which embraces a broad spectrum of the non-consensual distribution of private sexual images. Acknowledging the harms that arise from this practice and the human rights implications of ‘revenge pornography’, this paper focuses on the difficulty of removing those images from the Internet. It considers the legal vehicles which can be employed to force websites and third-party operators to remove private sexual images, including privacy law and copyright notice and takedown systems. It concludes that the piecemeal approach to image removal is insufficient, and that a more cohesive and appropriate approach to image removal is required to ensure that victim-survivors’ rights to private and family life are properly protected.

Keywords

human rights lawintellectual property lawrevenge pornimage-based sexual abuseprivacy
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 442 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Koppelman, A ‘Revenge pornography and first amendment exceptions’ (2016) 65 Emory Law Journal 661Google Scholar; Desai, S ‘Smile for the camera: the revenge pornography dilemma, California's approach and its constitutionality’ (2016) 42 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 443Google Scholar; Cyber Civil Rights Initiative ‘Infographic’ available at https://www.cybercivilrights.org/anatomy-effective-revenge-porn-law/ (accessed 19 May 2020).

2 Stokes, JK ‘The indecent internet: resisting unwarranted internet exceptionalism in combating revenge porn’ (2014) 29 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 929Google Scholar; Calvert, C ‘Revenge porn and freedom of expression: legislative pushback to an online weapon of emotional and reputational destruction’ (2015) 24 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 673Google Scholar.

3 McGlynn, C and Rackley, E ‘Image-based sexual abuse’ (2017) 37(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 534CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The spectrum of IBSA is wider than discussed here, encompassing also threats to take, make, or share private sexual images. This paper is concerned only with mechanisms for removing images and videos after they have already been shared.

4 Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, above n 1.

5 Ibid.

6 Stroud, SR and Henson, J ‘Social media, online sharing, and the ethical complexity of consent in revenge porn’ in Scheinbaum, A Close (ed) The Dark Side of Social Media: A Consumer Psychology Perspective (Routledge, 2017)Google Scholar.

7 W DeKeseredy and MD Schwartz ‘Thinking sociologically about image-based sexual abuse: the contribution of male peer support theory’ (2016) Sexualisation, Media, & Society 1 at 2.

8 S Gallagher ‘“Revenge porn” is not the right term to describe our experiences, say victims’ (Huffington Post, 3 August 2019) www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-are-we-still-calling-it-revenge-porn-victims-explain-change-in-the-laws-needed_uk_5d3594c2e4b020cd99465a99 accessed 15 February 2020.

9 Citron, D Keats and Franks, MA ‘Criminalizing revenge porn’ (2014) 49 Wake Forest Law Review 345 at 350Google Scholar; Bambauer, DE ‘Exposed’ (2014) 98 Minnesota Law Review 2025 at 2026Google Scholar.

10 Cecil, AL ‘Taking back the internet: imposing civil liability on interactive computer services in an attempt to provide an adequate remedy to victims of non-consensual pornography’ (2014) 71 Wash & Lee Law Review 2513Google Scholar.

11 A Binns ‘Facebook wants your nude photos to prevent “revenge porn” – here's why you should be sceptical’ (The Conversation, 14 November 2017) theconversation.com/facebook-wants-your-nude-photos-to-prevent-revenge-porn-heres-why-you-should-be-sceptical-87390 (accessed 19 May 2020).

12 Dymock, A and van der Westhuizen, C ‘A dish served cold: targeting revenge in revenge pornography’ (2019) 39(3) Legal Studies 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar: this paper outlines the weaknesses of the intention requirement embedded within the 2015 offence.

13 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015; Sched 8, para 5: ‘A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section 33 in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service…’

14 Beginning with Campbell v Mirror Group News Ltd [2004] UKHL 22.

15 McGlynn and Rackley, above n 3.

16 Levendowski, A ‘Using copyright to combat revenge porn’ (2014) 3 NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law 441Google Scholar.

17 Ibid, at 422.

18 Ibid.

19 UK Safer Internet Centre (undated) ‘Revenge porn helpline’ https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/blog/revenge-porn-helpline (accessed 19 May 2020).

20 Hall, M and Hearn, JRevenge Pornography: Gender Sexualities and Motivations (Routledge, 2018) p 18Google Scholar. Ibid, p 75.

21 Ibid.

22 McGlynn and Rackley, above n 3.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid, at 539.

25 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, s 33(1).

26 Ibid, s 33(8).

27 McGlynn and Rackley, above n 3, at 555.

28 Ibid.

29 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Sched 8, para 5.

30 ‘Revenge pornography: guidelines on prosecuting the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films’ (Crown Prosecution Service, 2015) https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/revenge-pornography-guidelines-prosecuting-offence-disclosing-private-sexual (accessed 19 May 2020).

31 McGlynn and Rackley, above n 3, at 546.

32 Ibid, at 545.

33 ECHR, Art 8. Article 8(1) states that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’. Article 8(2) provides that ‘there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’.

34 Moreham, N and Warby, M (eds) Tugendhat and Christie The Law of Privacy and the Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2016) p 212Google Scholar.

35 Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2007] UKHL 21 paras 80–137.

36 Human Rights Act 1998, s 2 provides that when a court or a tribunal is determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right, it must take into account any judgement, decision, declaratory or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, any opinion of the European Commission given in a report, decision of the European Commission and any decision of the Committee of Ministers.

37 Human Rights Act 1998, s 6.

38 Ibid, s 6(3).

39 Foster, SHuman Rights and Civil Liberties (Pearson, 3rd edn, 2011) p 162Google Scholar; Buxton, R ‘The Human Rights Act and private law’ (2000) 116 Law Quarterly Review 48Google Scholar; M Hunt ‘The “horizontal effect” of the Human Rights Act’ (1998) Public Law 423.

40 Douglas v Hello! Ltd, above n 35.

41 Douglas v Hello! Ltd, above n 35; Moreham and Warby, above n 34, pp 212–213.

42 Douglas v Hello! Ltd, above n 35, para 85 referring to X and Y v The Netherlands, para 23.

43 Ibid.

44 Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302; Stephens v Avery [1988] 1 Ch 449; Barrymore v News Group Newspapers [1997] FSR 600.

45 Douglas v Hello!, above n 35; PG v UK (2006) 46 EHRR 51.

46 Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB).

47 Tulisa Contostavlos v Michael Mendahun [2012] EWHC 850 (QB).

48 Douglas v Hello! Ltd, above n 35, paras 138, 165.

49 KU v Finland App No 2872/02 (ECtHR 2 December 2008) para 42.

50 Ibid, para 49.

51 Dudgeon v UK App No 7525/76 (ECtHR 22 October 1981).

52 Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245; Jersild v Denmark (1994) 19 EHHR 1; Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 1; Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843.

53 Moreham and Warby, above n 34, p 265.

54 CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB).

55 CoCo v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415.

56 Stephens v Avery, above n 44.

57 Ibid.

58 Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd, above n 46, para 105.

59 AMP v Persons Unknown [2011] EWHC 3454 (TCC); Contostavlos v Mendahun, above n 47.

60 CoCo v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd, above n 55, at 47.

61 Moreham and Warby, above n 34, pp 195–196.

62 Barrymore v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] FSR 600.

63 Campbell v Mirror Group News Ltd, above n 14, para 14.

64 AMP v Persons Unknown, above n 59.

65 R v Department of Health, ex p Source Informatics Ltd [2001] QB 424 (CA).

66 Ibid.

67 Barrymore v News Group Newspapers Ltd, above n 62.

68 Campbell v Mirror Group News Ltd, above n 14.

69 Ibid, para 14.

70 J Kleeman ‘YouTube star wins damages in landmark UK ‘revenge porn’ case’ (Guardian, 17 January 2018) www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-wins-damages-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-case (accessed 19 May 2020).

71 Contostavlos v Mendahun, above n 47.

72 In re S (FC) (a child) [2004] UKHL 47 at para 17.

73 ABK v KDT and FGH [2013] EWHC 1192 (QB).

74 Lee, YH ‘Delivering (up) a copyright-based remedy for revenge porn’ (2019) 14(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 99 at 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (the E-Commerce Directive), Art 14.

76 Dymock and van der Westhuizen, above n 12.

77 CG v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Joseph McCloskey [2016] NIQB 76.

78 Case C-324/09 L'Oreal v Ebay [2011] ECR I-06011.

79 AY v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 76.

80 It did, however, introduce a pilot provision which provided similar facilities in 2017: Binns, above n 11.

81 Lee, above n 74, at 110.

82 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

83 Caddick, N et al. Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (Sweet and Maxwell, 17th edn, 2016) para 1–35Google Scholar.

84 Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988, s 1.

85 Ibid, s 4.

86 Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc & Others (Hong Kong) [1988] UKPC 3.

87 Ibid.

88 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 16.

89 The Berne Convention, Art 2(5); WIPO – Guide to the Berne Convention, para 2.8.

90 Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16 paras 33–37.

91 Case C-145/10 Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH [2012] ECDR 6 paras 120–124.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

94 Rosati, E ‘Why originality in copyright is not and should not be a meaningless requirement’ (2018) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 597CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Caddick et al, above n 83, para 2–04.

96 Kelly v Morris (1865–66) LR 1 697; Karo Step [1977] RP 255 para 273.

97 Harms, LTC ‘Originality and “reproduction” in copyright law with special reference to photographs’ (2013) 16(5) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1Google Scholar.

98 Ibid.

99 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 9(1).

100 Cyber Civil Rights Initiative ‘Proposed CA Bill would fail to protect up to 80% of revenge porn victims’ (Press Release, 10 September 2013).

101 Guadamuz, A ‘The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction’ (2016) 5(1) Internet Policy ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 H Bosher ‘Gigi Hadid, smile for the copyright’ (The IPKat, 1 July 2019) http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/gigi-hadid-smile-for-copyright.html (accessed 19 May 2020).

103 Xclusive-Lee, Inc v Hadid (1:19-cv-00520) (2019 District Court, EDNY).

104 ‘Gigi Hadid victorious in paparazzi photo copyright case as court cites fourth estate decision’ (The Fashion Law, 18 July 2019) available at www.thefashionlaw.com/home/gigi-hadid-victorious-in-paparazzi-photo-copyright-case-as-court-cites-fourth-estate-decision (accessed 19 May 2020).

105 Kogan v Martin and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 1645.

106 For a fuller discussion see Simone, DCopyright and Collective Authorship: Locating the Authors of Collaborative Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Kleeman, above n 70.

108 Ibid.

109 Lee, above n 74, at 110.

110 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 16.

111 Ibid, s 17(2).

112 Ibid, s 18(2).

113 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended), Art 9.

114 Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1998, 17 US Code §512(c).

115 Ibid.

116 This phrase, as well as the term expeditiously, is used multiple times within the section as a whole, notably in §512(c)(1)(A)(iii), and §512 (c)(1)(C), which refer to user-uploaded material.

117 Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1998 17 US Code §512(c)(3).

118 Ibid, §512(c)(1)(A)(iii).

119 Ibid, §512(g)(3).

120 Ibid, §512(c)(2).

121 E-Commerce Directive, above n 75, Art 14.

122 Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1998 17 US Code §512(c)(3).

123 Ibid, §512(c)(3)(A).

124 See for example Whois.net, a domain lookup service which provides contact details for registered owners of domains.

125 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJL 119/1

126 See for example ICANN Whois, which has redacted nearly all information about domain host Blacknight.com, in an information request submitted in November 2018: whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=blacknight.com.

127 Lumen Database, which collects and analyses takedown notices, registered almost 2.2 million notices from 27 November 2017–27 November 2018: lumendatabase.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&date_received_facet=1511845200000.0..1543381200000.0 (accessed 19 May 2020).

128 T Lauinger et al ‘Clickonomics: determining the effect of anti-piracy measures for one-click hosting’ (2013) Presented at 20th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2013).

129 B Sisario and T Vega ‘Playing whac-a-mole with piracy sites’ (New York Times, 28 January 2013).

130 Jansen, S and Martin, B ‘The Streisand effect and censorship backfire’ (2015) 9 International Journal of Communication 656Google Scholar.

131 Levendowski, above n 16.

132 Ibid, at 443.

133 Doxxing is the process of sharing real-life information such as addresses, workplaces, contact numbers, etc.

134 J Kleeman, ‘The YouTube star who fought back against revenge porn – and won’ (Guardian, 18 January 2018) www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/18/chrissy-chambers-youtube-revenge-porn-legal-victory (accessed 19 May 2020).

135 Office of the eSafety Commissioner ‘Image-based abuse’ available at www.esafety.gov.au/image-based-abuse/ (accessed 19 May 2020).