The moral and ethical dilemma of screenshotting nudes

[Bread.]

The main question asked was wether it is moral/ethical to screenshot a nude photo sent to you, not what the legal implications are from "retroactively unsharing"(impossible)your image.

Is it a crime to to a search engine and search "duck" and save a picture of a duck?

Personal use is not copyright infringement.

The only thing that im trying to justify is that people have no control over their images when they willingly choose to share them.

 

[StubleU]

Right, people have no control over other people's choice to abuse a legal copyright infringement. You are correct.

Can people do it? They absolutely can physically do it. Is it creepy and predatory? Also an absolute. Again, enjoy your mega stash of victims.

 

[SouporMan]

He legit has folders and folders of SS.

 

[Inkandtatts]

He legit has folders and folders of SS.

Aka his wankbank that he frequently massdebates to


In any event, everyone has different morals and each person follows their own code of ethics. We know what the OPs are and this latest soliloquy is the massdebater’s way of framing his own morals as a debate.

You can close this now @Willywanker

 

[emileh]

Aka his wankbank that he frequently massdebates to


In any event, everyone has different morals and each person follows their own code of ethics. We know what the OPs are and this latest soliloquy is the massdebater’s way of framing his own morals as a debate.

You can close this now @Willywanker

He's hiding behind what he considers to be legitimate debate in order to justify his own seedy outlook and actions by the sound of it.

 

[Bread.]

Right, people have no control over other people's choice to abuse a legal copyright infringement. You are correct.

Can people do it? They absolutely can physically do it. Is it creepy and predatory? Also an absolute. Again, enjoy your mega stash of victims.

By that argument you "copyright infringe" every photo that was ever sent to you even without screenshot. Besides this was a moral and ethical not a legal one. Go to the goverment and complain to them that you sent nudes to an ex gf, and you dont know whether or not they have saved them because theyve not been shared. Call it "copyright infringement"

He's hiding behind what he considers to be legitimate debate in order to justify his own seedy outlook and actions by the sound of it.

He? Kinda weird youre refusing to attack the other people, including women who have agreed with what i said, seems awfully prejudiced. LOL

 

[Deleted member 263960]

I assume it is both, and more since doing so is a crime in Canada https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162.1.html

(1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty .......

• Definition of intimate image
  (2) In this section, intimate image means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording,
  • (a) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or is engaged in explicit sexual activity;
  • (b) in respect of which, at the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
  • (c) in respect of which the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.

try telling the RCMP its a matter of copyright👽

 

[Bread.]

The debate at hand explicitly mentions thats not what this debate is about.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

The debate at hand explicitly mentions thats not what this debate is about.

ok fair enough. But the premise is too limited. If someone consents the issue is moot until shared. Generally speaking anything that can be readily seen in plain view isnt protected anyhow (But there should be protections)


If they dont consent there may be other legal applications (extorsion, blackmail pornography, or active peengate 👀 etc so clearly immoral).

 

[StubleU]

ok fair enough. But the premise is too limited. If someone consents the issue is moot until shared. Generally speaking anything that can be readily seen in plain view isnt protected anyhow (But there should be protections)


If they dont consent there may be other legal applications (extorsion, blackmail pornography, or active peengate 👀 etc so clearly immoral).

No, regardless of whether the images gets shared or not...the screenshot...if not explicitly consented...is a violation of their privacy...and copyright.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

No, regardless of whether the images gets shared or not...the screenshot...if not explicitly consented...is a violation of their privacy...and copyright.

Personal pic is protected in Canada? A non commercial or non artistic work? Might want to read this :
copyright means the rights described in

• (a) section 3, in the case of a work,
• (b) sections 15 and 26, in the case of a performer’s performance,
• (c) section 18, in the case of a sound recording, or
• (d) section 21, in the case of a communication signal; (droit d’auteur)

source : https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-2.html#docCont

which shows their can be moral infringement but it has nothing to do with ethics or morality as laid out in the debate or common usage.


tldr? unless you copywrote your image as a performer etc, or it is a commerical/artistic work its fair game.

I agree its a violation pf privacy but Privacy laws are weak to non existent in canada- https://www.lexpert.ca/legal-insigh...ntario-court-of-appeal-on-privacy-tort/373145

 

[StubleU]

Personal pic is protected in Canada? A non commercial or non artistic work? Might want to read this :
copyright means the rights described in

• (a) section 3, in the case of a work,
• (b) sections 15 and 26, in the case of a performer’s performance,
• (c) section 18, in the case of a sound recording, or
• (d) section 21, in the case of a communication signal; (droit d’auteur)

source : https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-2.html#docCont

which shows their can be moral infringement but it has nothing to do with ethics or morality as laid out in the debate or common usage.


tldr? unless you copywrote your image as a performer etc, or it is a commerical/artistic work its fair game.

I agree its a violation pf privacy but Privacy laws are weak to non existent in canada- https://www.lexpert.ca/legal-insigh...ntario-court-of-appeal-on-privacy-tort/373145

• 162.1 (1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty
  • (a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
  • (b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Unless that image stays on the original device in it's original form it can be argued that it's a form of transmitting as a technical definition could be argued to be that the intended form was shared in another manner.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

• 162.1(1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty
  • (a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
  • (b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Unless that image stays on the original device in it's original form it can be argued that it's a form of transmitting as a technical definition could be argued to be that the intended form was shared in another manner.

No, regardless of whether the images gets shared or not...the screenshot...if not explicitly consented...is a violation of their privacy...and copyright.

you said a personal pic was protected by copyright. Now you moved to the criminal law, ok. The problem is the debate creator explicitly removed issues of sharing as an aspect of the debate (something I think was a mistake)https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249264


in fact youre now restating my original point here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249263

 

[DarthErica]

This entire thread is why I don’t post pictures anymore 😂. I was revenge porned once. Never again 😖😫

 

[StubleU]

you said a personal pic was protected by copyright. Now you moved to the criminal law, ok. The problem is the debate creator explicity removed issues of sharing as an aspect of the debate (something I think was a mistake)https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249264


in fact youre now restating my original point here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249263

In the US it's protected by copyright law...in canada it is not...but like i said...screenshotting could be considered a form of transmission as it's not the original method in which it was consensually shared...and there for could be a violation of that original consensual sharing agreement

but it's good to know you're also trying to justify abhorrent behavior...seems to track based on what others have widely discussed all over.

This entire thread is why I don’t post pictures anymore 😂. I was revenge porned once. Never again 😖😫

🙃based on their responses to this thread...it wouldn't be a far stretch to believe that given the opportunity they'd also simply steal the pictures...so a post or a share wouldn't be necessary for them to make you feel violated by the users. The podcast Darknet Diaries covers that in a number of episodes including the latest, Episode 140.

 

[Deleted member 263960]

In the US it's protected by copyright law...in canada it is not...but like i said...screenshotting could be considered a form of transmission as it's not the original method in which it was consensually shared...and there for could be a violation of that original consensual sharing agreement

but it's good to know you're also trying to justify abhorrent behavior...seems to track based on what others have widely discussed all over.


🙃based on their responses to this thread...it wouldn't be a far stretch to believe that given the opportunity they'd also simply steal the pictures...so a post or a share wouldn't be necessary for them to make you feel violated by the users. The podcast Darknet Diaries covers that in a number of episodes including the latest, Episode 140.

incorrect. We can agree its shitty behaviour. Im simply trying to respect the debate creators paremeters. But its shitty behaviour that can be prevented by never sharing noods.

 

[StubleU]

incorrect. We can agree its shitty behaviour. Im simply trying to respect the debate creators paremeters. But its shitty behaviour that can be prevented by never sharing noods.

Again, people shouldn't have to worry about sharing themselves with others. Other people just shouldn't be shitty people. We don't blame rape victims for being raped, the rapist did it.

 

[Bread.]

No, regardless of whether the images gets shared or not...the screenshot...if not explicitly consented...is a violation of their privacy...and copyright.

can you **** off with your COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. This thread is about ETHICAL and MORAL dilemmas not about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT>

Personal pic is protected in Canada? A non commercial or non artistic work? Might want to read this :
copyright means the rights described in

• (a) section 3, in the case of a work,
• (b) sections 15 and 26, in the case of a performer’s performance,
• (c) section 18, in the case of a sound recording, or
• (d) section 21, in the case of a communication signal; (droit d’auteur)

source : https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-2.html#docCont

which shows their can be moral infringement but it has nothing to do with ethics or morality as laid out in the debate or common usage.


tldr? unless you copywrote your image as a performer etc, or it is a commerical/artistic work its fair game.

I agree its a violation pf privacy but Privacy laws are weak to non existent in canada- https://www.lexpert.ca/legal-insigh...ntario-court-of-appeal-on-privacy-tort/373145

Can you imagine going down to the government/lawyer and bitching that a nude photo you took and sent to someone, was possibly saved?

Stuble: "hey i sent this guy a nude photo of me"
Joe Biden: "and?"
Stuble: "and i no longer consent to him having it"
Joe Biden: "how do you know he screenshotted or saved it?"
Stuble: "because i sent it to him and regret it and that is copyright infringement"
Joe Biden: "how do you know he COPYRIGHT INFRINGED you"
Stuble: "because i sent it to him"
Joe Biden: "but how do you prove he saved it?"
Stuble: "because i sent it to him, i dunno"

• 162.1(1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty
  • (a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
  • (b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Unless that image stays on the original device in it's original form it can be argued that it's a form of transmitting as a technical definition could be argued to be that the intended form was shared in another manner.

how is it staying in the "original device" when the ACT OF SENDING IT literally reproduces it. You can also argue that the recipient never consented to receiving said images. What if the recipient says he retroactively removes his consent? does that then make the sender is the RAPIST?

you said a personal pic was protected by copyright. Now you moved to the criminal law, ok. The problem is the debate creator explicitly removed issues of sharing as an aspect of the debate (something I think was a mistake)https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249264


in fact youre now restating my original point here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...reenshotting-nudes.947332/page-3#post-1249263

​

It can be considered a breach of trust.​

​

• It can be argued that these images are assumed to be private. More arguable when sent through the means of an app where images are removed by default but no context was given in this debate.

It can be considered consentual/contextual.​

• It can be argued that these images are being consentually sent with the assumption they can be saved. This is blatantly common sense.

Thats why i specifically stated not sharing.

 

[Bread.]

This entire thread is why I don’t post pictures anymore 😂. I was revenge porned once. Never again 😖😫

Unfortunately Men like me are not excluded from being a victim of revenge porn. I too have made wiser choices now.

In the US it's protected by copyright law...in canada it is not...but like i said...screenshotting could be considered a form of transmission as it's not the original method in which it was consensually shared...and there for could be a violation of that original consensual sharing agreement

but it's good to know you're also trying to justify abhorrent behavior...seems to track based on what others have widely discussed all over.

🙃based on their responses to this thread...it wouldn't be a far stretch to believe that given the opportunity they'd also simply steal the pictures...so a post or a share wouldn't be necessary for them to make you feel violated by the users. The podcast Darknet Diaries covers that in a number of episodes including the latest, Episode 140.

Yes Im aware given the opportunity, anyone i send pictures of my giant horse to can simply save them.

incorrect. We can agree its shitty behaviour. Im simply trying to respect the debate creators paremeters. But its shitty behaviour that can be prevented by never sharing noods.

Again, people shouldn't have to worry about sharing themselves with others. Other people just shouldn't be shitty people.

I completely agree with both of you, people should be able to share themselves with others without fear or worry. Unfortunately we dont live in that world.

We don't blame rape victims for being raped, the rapist did it.

While Rapists are solely responsible for the act of raping, there are many proactive things you can do to reduce the risk of being raped. Such as not walking around around drunk, alone at midnight with a miniskirt on

Listen...if you want you can win this debate...sure...but i think the real winners are the users...who are seeing exactly how creepy you are.

Debates are not about winning or losing, but rather about understanding different viewpoints and exchanging dialogue

 

[emileh]

Debates are not about winning or losing, but rather about understanding different viewpoints and exchanging dialogue

Or in your case, for attempting to justify your repugnant bigotry and dubious moral standards by "rationalising" them. It ain't working by the way.