The Data Protection Act 1998 tends to be for things like banking records, medical records.
He could argue that the film is a piece of "art", which was made by mutual
agreement, and therefore qualifies under the "freedom of expression" exemption
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/32 She would then have to prove that
he knew that he did not have her consent either for the filming or for the resulting film
to be put in the public domain.
As a malicious e-communication, all she needs to demonstrate is that her ex-boyfriend
knowingly communicated - "to another person a letter, electronic communication or
article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly
offensive."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27 It might only be necessary to
prove that he knowingly posted the video to a number of porn websites, adding titles that
"convey a message which is indecent or grossly offensive".
I'm less sure about the civil case though, as the article states:
Victims of revenge pornography are unable to sue for
defamation, as although the images and videos posted of them might be damaging, they
depict events that really happened and therefore do not qualify as “false statements”.
The Daily Mail has reported
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110150/Revenge-porn-victim-seek-la…
"The exact terms of her civil case are not clear, but she claims the explicit videos
have caused her to lose subscribers and damaged her earnings from advertising.
Again, I'm guessing her lawyer is going to try and argue something along
the lines of which particular websites they were uploaded to and what
titles he added to show some form of defamation, unless the civil case
has nothing to do with defamation and Olivarius has something really
clever in mind.
Marie
From: werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:14:17 +0100
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] American woman files revenge-porn lawsuit in England
I understand that the new law on revenge porn can't be applied retrospectively to
something posted before that law was passed. But I'm surprised they haven't used
the 1998 Data Protection Act, surely this is personal information about an identifiable
individual, and it doesn't seem likely it is being used in accordance with the
purposes that the individual consented to?
To bring things back to this list, are people comfortable with Wikipedia policies re
revenge porn?
Regards
Jonathan
On 3 Jun 2015, at 19:23, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ironically, the name of the woman is public, but the man's name is not.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/us-woman-pursues-ex-boyfrien…
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap