Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
wired.com
wired.com
Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent.
Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.
I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window).
Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.
But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.
It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content.
If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.
Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)
Yes, the discussion I was responding to was literally and explictly about pornographic content.
> Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject.
That's what I said.
I also said that likeness rights flow from the subject, and that both were potential issues depending on where the chain of permissions do and do not reach.
> You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it
You cannot issue a DMCA takedown based on copyright on that basis, but, likewise, the DMCA safe harbor which applies only to copyright claims does not apply to violations of likeness rights at all. (Section 230 protections might apply to an independent host, but that has no bearing on the legality of the content simply who is liable for the illegality.)
Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.
But as the top comment suggests who cares about this stuff. its ridiculous...
The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel. And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use. If a your movie is shooting in Vancouver would you risk a celeb with a cocaine problem crossing that boarder ten times a year?
What? Has an anonymously leaked video of drug use ever prevented someone from entering another country? I've traveled a fair amount and gone through immigration in a number of different countries. Not once did any immigration official ever search the internet to see if there were any videos of me doing drugs. That is not a thing that happens.
> And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use.
Again. What? What are you talking about? If celebrities with a history of drug use never worked again, there would be no celebrities. Practically every celebrity has used drugs at one time or another.
The box office cares? Robert Downey Jr. was famous mostly for using drugs when he did Iron Man and went on to become one of the biggest stars in Hollywood after that.
Many contracts have specific "no drugs" clauses. Evidence of drug use during such contracts is not good and really can impact future work.
I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.
I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.
As deepfakes become more believable and prevalent, celebrities will be able to just label any kind of sex-tape type leak as a deepfake. So hopefully this scumbag's business model is destroyed.
Maybe some hn'ers who trade in exploit discovery could shed some light on how this in tech, as I guess it is maybe similar legal territory?
Others will only agree to share the exploit if you pay, but I have always assumed that it is a scam or a really lame vulnerability.
Behind are the enties, the entertainment lawyers from the agencies and studios, behind that are the studio bosses, who might also pull the strings on the press, which they control, on the police which they control, and in some cases on the mafia or intelligence agencies to get rid of the really big problems. You'll read about a celeb suicide or drug death then.
There is also a huge economy of secrets behind the "closets". about 10% of the celebs are gay and hire "beards", models sho earn their money pretending to be a girlfriend. Also a huge economy of drug trading and "yachting", prostitution by celebs on yachts. With all these illegal activities and lies you are involved in a grander scheme, keeping it suppressed, you are owned, blackmailable. Not just Hollywood, also in the Asian counterparts. Not a healthy basis for their economy.