45
Redditor Convicted for Sharing Nude Scenes in Landmark 'Moral Rights' Copyright Case
(torrentfreak.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
45 points (100.0% liked)
DeclineIntoCensorship
781 readers
61 users here now
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for phrasing your question as a question! Sexual consent is:
I know people want to jack off for free, but nobody is automatically entitled to someone’s nudes just because they exist. Nudes are a deeply personal thing. You’re welcome to find some Creative Commons pics, or pay for it.
Seriously, if someone asks you to delete nudes of them, you have a moral obligation to do that, and that right extends to all people, including you, your exes, sex workers, and yes actresses
So the producer got his money back as soon as she withdrew consent?
So just to clarify, you’re saying that because this woman engaged in capitalism, she has no right to her own dignity? Or that she personally went out and say “I hereby license my nude likeness to be used for all purposes for free in perpetuity?”
Come on, man.
Is the movie as a whole still available?
Love the ratio my dude. Social justice warrior lever not working? Happens to the best of us. Better luck Next time <3
lol social justice warrior? what are you 70 years old? sorry if me politely bringing up that women have a basic right to a dignified existence free of harassment makes you uncomfy-womfy
and you can have your ratio. all the upvotes in the world doesn’t mean you’re right, and clearly danish law agrees with me
Danish law ruled on a case with it's own context and arguments, that you have an opinion after the fact in no way confers the outcome of that ruling to your very specific interpretation of the law/events.
Unless you were either party in that actual ruling?
Sorry who are you? Why does suddenly everyone on the internet want to get a word in edge-wise as soon as I say something even mildly feminist? Literally none of my other comments get this much hate, but when I suggest that a person doesn’t have an innate right to someone’s nudes tons of random people from all over the internet have to show up in my inbox with their take. Ffs guys it’s a bad look
My username is right above my reply.
Is your question why are people replying to your statement in a public discourse on a public forum?
I’m not sure I’m equipped to explain that to you if you can’t figure that out from context.
Further, a lot of the replies aren't actually disagreeing with your stance, they are disagreeing with the poor arguments you are using to try and justify your stance.
Pick arguments that aren't full of holes and you'll probably get less pushback.
Literally none of what i said referenced any of that, you made a claim that was logically suspect, i made a comment regarding that claim, none of what i said referenced literally any other point you have made.
I suspect that if you were commenting on something with equal levels of visibility with the same logically sketchy arguments you'd get just as much pushback.
More controversial topics get more replies, that's how the internet works.
edit:ordering
You address the question as an individual’s right to sexual consent without acknowledging it is an actor who consented to portray a character and the character’s actions within the guise of that role.
If this were a recording of the individual’s sexual acts (like “the fappening”) I believe you would be accurate with every one of your points.
Given these are not recordings of the individual’s sexual consent, and rather a recording of a professional actor’s depiction of their character’s (sexual or otherwise) nudity ultimately being distributed for titillation, I can entirely understand the objection to their professional art being consumed in an unexpected way, and can certainly understand that outside of context the titillation is fixated on their personally-identifying physical form—without the contextualization to their performance or character.
However, it is a patronizing stance to blatantly state the actor’s sexual consent was violated, as it further objectifies the actor as little more than an (implied defenseless) woman being victimized. Patronizing to the actor, yes, but more so to actual victims of sexual consent violations whose sexual victimizations become diluted when an actor’s character portrayal is framed as their own real life sex crime.
I agree the actor is justified to object to how their portrayals are distributed out of context and for purposes of titillation, but I do not believe “sexual consent” is the appropriate or respectful argument to be made—legally, morally, or otherwise.
I’m not a lawyer but arguing the subjects of fair use, copyright, etc would seem to respect the professionalism of actors and the victimhood of violated women more effectively.
I agree more with the actor’s concerns than your characterization of the offense.
The women said they didn’t know. And that is next level mental gymnastics to claim that I’m the one objectifying, and not the people literally reducing them to objects by sharing their nudes like trading cards against their wishes
Go fuck yourself, you presumptuous, lying, piece of shit. You have no right to libel me just because you don't like the question I asked!
You engage in blatantly bad faith scurrilous false accusations like that and then you presume to lecture me about "moral obligation?" What the fuck is wrong with you?!
Delete your toxic bullshit and then maybe we can have a productive discussion about how you're asserting that people have the right to accept money to do a job and then rescind permission for that work product to be used unilaterally and (presumably) without recompense, and how the world doesn't work like that.
Otherwise, you need to be banned.
wow sorry I upset you but you need to cool off. It is not acceptable to talk to people the way you just addressed me.
What a condescending non-apology. You fail; try again.
Hint: a proper apology is about acknowledging your own bad behavior, not my justified reaction to it.
The only one addressing people unacceptably here is you. You're just trying to DARVO because you're butthurt that I called you out on it instead of tolerating your bad-faith rhetoric.
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
What a condescending non apology
Once capital and copyright are involved consent is impossible.
Copyright is not and can not ever be a part of consent.
Law generally can't.
Wild take. So in your mind prostitutes have no right to consent?
Is there copyright involved in prostitution?
Actually yes, many prostitutes will film themselves doing the act, because it makes it technically legal in some states in the US if it’s “porn”. But you didn’t know that, so that’s besides the point.
Taking a step back: this is c/declineintocensorship not c/piracy. The fact that these are copyrighted means these pictures had even more protections than if not, legally speaking. Even ignoring the sensitive nature of these pictures, it is reasonable for the owner of content (the actresses and or producers) to enforce their copyright protections on these.
So porn involves copyright, a legally distinct category of activity.
Which i did in fact already know, i didn't realise you were referencing something that you hadn't mentioned in your reply.
I'll assume you don't actually have a basis for claiming that prostitution involves copyright then.
I get that it sounds like splitting hairs, but we are commenting on something with a legal context, the legal distinctions are relevant.
Indeed, as seems to be the case here.
Are you trolling? Someone does a nude scene in a movie that they want millions of people to watch... and you think... they have the right to say "no, dont watch my movie. Thats sexual harrassment!!!!"???? Please tell me youre trolling, and not just this dumb.