Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonhansel | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised that so many comments here are criticizing the plaintiff. It seems obvious to me that (a) nude images of someone should only be distributed with that person's consent, and that (b) 4-year-olds are not old enough to consent to such things. Whether he has a legal case is another issue, but it seems clear to me that morally Elder is in the right.

View on HN

The individual in the photo is 4 'months' old. Arguably 4 month old babies being nude should not be a big deal. I suspect in much of the world this is the normal attire for a 4 month old. I guess videos of babies being born (see for instance "Call the Midwife" on BBC) should now require a signed consent from the embryo first?

I think more nuanced question--at what point should consent transfer from the legal guardian to the individual?

In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?

I don't think that consent by a legal guardian is ever sufficient in this sort of case. Distributing nude images of a person should require the consent of that person, not (just) that of a legal guardian.

A non-sexual naked picture of a baby isn't much different from a clothed picture of a baby in terms of societal acceptance, which is why nobody is criticising Nirvana/UMG.

IANAL, but isn't that why the designation of legal guardian exists--to allow someone else to make decisions on behalf of someone else?

I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid.

Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com