Hacker News Reader

Comment by icu | Hacker News Reader

As much as I disagree with the concept of OF content, I do believe that people should be free to do what they want, provided it is consentual and it isn't harming others. However, OF—and any adult content for that matter—can lead to exploitation. Because of this, I think it is sensible for online platforms of adult content to voluntarily require a model release and proof of Government ID as part of their Terms of Service. Since this isn't happening, it now seems sensible to regulate that any, and all, adult content posted online require a model release. The way I see it, OF was morally complicit in this sordid affair, but couldn't be held to account due to the law. The OF management could have easily protected themselves, and sexual assault victims, from these worst case scenarios but didn't. The law really needs to change and there needs to be regulation in this area.

View on HN

I am skeptical that putting a model release requirement in their ToS is sufficient, since the goal here is to have sex offenders be separable from regretful models in court proceedings.

I think this might require a separate law to be meaningfully enforceable since you really want people to be directly liable for the lack of release, rather than having defendants claim "nobody ever reads the ToS or has a release".

At the very least it would probably require very clear messaging from OFs that this is required, such that basically everyone on the platform actually has/is able to produce it.

Stock photography sites have figured out how to manage model releases. There's no reason that OF can't do it as well. I think that any model appearing in a video that is released on OF should have an "account" that they can manage their releases as well even if that is a separate account that does not include a normal page for publishing content. If a video is uploaded that does not have each model linked, it is not allowed to be published type of thing

Stock photography sites don't generally provide nudes and sex videos.

what's your point?

Um, have you ever looked at "stock photography sites"? Here's Getty, one of the largest:

NSFW - https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=nude%20...

I think this is a great point; I don't think it is widely known (it certainly was not to me) that stock photography sites already have a model release process to reference.

I wasn't really thinking about regretful models, I was thinking about rape and sexual assault victims. I don't have any firsthand knowledge about any of this stuff, but I imagine that a signed model release and verfied Government ID falls under contract law. I have no idea about how the law would deal with a situation where a model recinds their consent. My guess is that would have to be dealt with in court. However, I do think requiring signed releases and verified Government ID might have prevented the case mentioned in the post... not the rape or sexual assault, but putting the video online, which would have caused even more pain and suffering on the part of the victim.

Right, the point of releases is to separate those who were assaulted from those who were not. Without releases these two groups can appear the same, making prosecution difficult.

Model release isn't enough, the feds need to actually back it with legislation and perhaps ensure all the signing happen at a police station, so no accusations of consent can be bandied about. Given the amount of revenue the industry generated for LA and Florida, this should not be controversial. There was the infamous "girl do porn" case last year where even with model release the producers were accused of public distribution when the contract said it was for private release and the models decided to sue for sexual assault based on a contract law breach. The industry needs to be thoroughly regulated with lots of sunshine lists on all players, contract law and civil courts will only lead to tragedy.

The model releases did not protect the offenders in the GirlsDoPorn case and serious prison sentences were handed out, so I'm not sure what you think went wrong with the law here? (My reading here is cursory, so do let me know) It seems like the main offender escaped justice for a while because he fled the country?

Requiring this level of sustained abuse to prosecute people is obviously bad, so I am entirely open to the idea that more should be done here to prevent this abuse, but it seems like these people were prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt despite having some sort of releases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com