Only pornographic pictures no?
"Intimate" as they say.
Looks like it's defined in 15 U.S.C. § 6851(a)(5).
In that section an “intimate visual depiction” is defined as:
- Nudity: any image that shows “the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or post-pubescent female nipple” of an identifiable person
- Sex-fluid content: any image showing the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids on, from, or involving an identifiable person
- Sex acts: any image of an identifiable person “engaging in sexually-explicit conduct” (the term borrows the full sex-act list from 18 U.S.C. § 2256)
- Public-place exception: a nude shot taken in public is covered only if the individual did not voluntarily expose themselves or consent to the sexual act in that setting.
Looks clear enough to me. Also, it's not 2 am, so I am thinking a little more clearly. I don't think it's
that bad. This is because I didn't realize only the victim could file - it's not like random faggots could use someone else's leaks; faggots can still use their own.
Only the actual victim (or an authorized proxy) can file such a notice, and, only for something that is "intimate" (read: sexual) per the code above. So it looks now to literally just be for revenge porn. Someone with leaked nudes could post their own leaked nudes to a site to then report it to try to mess with them, sure. Which means KF will probably have to deal with this sometime soon.
What's potentially legally interesting is if there were (for instance) OnlyFans leaks, and this law was used, because it meets § 6851’s “non-consensual distribution” element. This is interesting because DMCA notices already apply
for the copyright holder. This act now lets the
performer act directly. In other words, a performer can swear that pirated commercial media (yanno, normal porn) was published without her consent if the copyright holder didn't transfer it. In other words, consent to create and give rights to a particular entity is not consent to publish elsewhere
unless the copyright/IP holder then legally transferred it. But the performer has a right, in this case.
This means porn sites that steal from other porn sites and leakers are potentially in for a world of hurt, or a world of offshoring.
This also means Kelly Wang memes might become illegal, roflmao.
lol
tl;dr - actual revenge porn victims and their lawyers/parents have teeth; unintentionally? anyone distributing adult commercial legal porn without rights is at risk of DMCA *AND* Take-It-Down. So, Null probably has to impose some rules about porn stars, only fans, various other leakers, etc very soon.
