What is Revenge Pornography?

As cited in the illustrious Cambridge Dictionary^[1]. Revenge porn is private sexual photographs or filmography, in which are put onto the online environment by a former partner which depicts the sender of the images/films, with intent to punish or harm them. 
For example, if an ex-boyfriend who had experienced a bad break-up uploads images of their former sexual partner, to a porn website or even social media and this has an extremely detrimental effect on that women. 

Introduction 

Revenge pornography is a fairly new but, rapidly expanding area of law in relation to the online environment. The reason for this is, growth of technology with several applications available on people-in particular teenager’s phones. These include; Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and many more. This means it is very accessible for young people to interact and pass sexual images or videos to other young people, this has been the primary factor in the rise of the sending sexual images to others. It is under the label of ‘Sexting’, this is a culture that has risen with the rise of social media. 
According to a BBC report from 2017^[2], which emanated from discussions with the Police in the UK. Thousands of children, with some as young as 5 years old have been investigated fir ‘sexting’. Furthermore, figures stated that there has been ‘4,000’ Police cases between 2013-2017, in relation to the new phenomenon of children/teens sending explicit sexual images and sending to other young people. This shows just how frighteningly usual sexting is getting with children.
In addition to this, from Smith, Davidson and Thompsons paper, ‘Cyber Safety for Adolescent girls’. Which was referenced in Andrew Murray’s Technology Information law book 3^rdedition^[3]. It states that; in the UK ‘12%’ had suffered peer pressure to send images, where as ‘4%’ had sent images as a result of this. This worryingly breaks down to ‘444,000’ children between the age if 11-16 receiving these images. In addition to the even more frightening prospect of, ‘148,000’ children generating and sending such images in return. 
Thus, highlighting how ‘sexting’ has become a major issue and how it directly links to revenge porn as many of these images shall be sent on or uploaded without consent of the senders of the pictures. 

Historical Development 

With a thorough introduction to what revenge porn and sexting entail, highlighting what a major issue it is becoming in the modern era. This blog shall now delve into the background and development of law in relation to revenge porn. 
In relation to Sexting and in particular under the age of 18, this is dealt with by the Protection of Children Act 1978^[4]and the Criminal Justice Act 1988^[5]. Both of these acts can be useful in many cases, such as sexting from a person over the age of 18 to someone under that age. However, the major fault in the legislation is, as most of the senders and receivers involved in sexting are both under the age of 18. The laws do not allow the full brunt of law to be brought down upon them, leaving major gaps in terms of dealing with sexting, which as discussed is the main method of starting revenge porn. 
In terms of with Revenge porn itself^[6], it comes predominantly through 2 ways; the first is websites online that depict pictures uploaded of normally peoples ex girlfriend/boyfriends and the second is more direct and is the same types of photos being posted on social media. 
The first, has been a major problem with several sites being produced and images being uploaded. One of the most famous cases in this field comes from Hunter Moore 2015^[7]. in this American based case, a cite called ‘IsAnyoneUP.com’, the website contained several images uploaded of ‘ex’s’ depicting them nude or in videos. In addition, it was found many of the uploaded images were as a result of hacking into people’s pictures to find images and upload them. Subsequently Moore was charged with both computer misuse and identify charges. In 2015 he pleaded guilty to the charges, resulting in him being fined ‘2,000’ dollars and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Thus highlighting how serious revenge porn is handled globally in these cases. However, with many similar sites still active and these types of images freely going about it is argued more can be done to stamp it out. 

In relation to the second main type of revenge porn, it is a more personal and arguably causes greater physical and psychological damage to the victim. It entails usually ex’s posting images to social media, often tagging the victim which depicts them in a nude or semi nude state. Prior to the England and Wales legislation of, Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 S.33-35^[8]and Scotland’s Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Act 2016 S.22. It was extremely hard to legally deal with revenge porn, as it was not legally dealt with under a specific piece of legislation. 
A case that highlights this clearly is, the case of AMP V Persons Unknown 2011 ^[9]. In this English case, a girl had her phone stolen and indecent images stolen from it and uploaded. In the tackling of the case she had to use a mixture of copyright law and the protection of harassment act to peruse a case, as pervious to the case being taken forward anyone who uploaded the images was not committing an offence. Thus, the case under these legislations gave the women control over the images to formally notify suppliers of the images that a breach of the court was occurring.
This highlights how iritic the law was in terms of revenge porn only a few years ago and how far it has came in recent times with new legislation, in addition it shows how new an area of law it still is and how it shall take time to fully get on top of it in relation to law. 

Review of Current law

In relation to the current law as previously mentioned, for England and Wales it is brought in by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Sections 33-35 and, the Scotland Act of Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm 2016 Section 22. The legislation’s brought are essentially the first that directly deals with and engages revenge porn head on. Thus, it is arguable that the law shall not be perfect and there shall be some kinks in it to be ironed out throughout future precedent and amendments made. 
Furthermore, with the legislation being so new it is difficult to calculate how successful it has been thus far. However, some developments have clearly been made in the early days of the legislation. In relation to the England and Wales act it has had some early success, this was highlighted in a BBC report from 2016^[10]. In this report it details how; more than ‘200’ people had been prosecuted under the act since its inception a year prior, entailing maximum imprisonment of 2 years. This shows a clear impact as previously the offences were more likely to go unpunished as a result of no clear legislation to protect victims. However, as the report goes on to also state, freedom of information responses from 31 of 43 Police forces in England or Wales, stated that there was ‘1,160’ reported incidents on revenge porn in a time frame from April-December 2015. This is startlingly high, in addition a frightening stat of ’61%’ of the cases resulted in no action being taken. Thus, making clear that although some strides in the right direction had been made by the new law, the issue was still predominantly unresolved in England and Wales. 
In relation to Scotland’s answer to revenge porn in the 2016 act, another BBC report in 2018 written by ‘Marc Ellison’^[11]. In this report it details the shortcomings of Scotland’s 2016 law, in relation to July-December 2017. ‘225’ complaints were lodged to Police regarding revenge porn in Scotland. However, only ‘89’- which equates to the extremely low ‘39%’ were actually referred to prosecutors. In a continuing theme a third of the cases were concerning teenagers. Thus, highlighting how vulnerable people are not getting sufficient protection in cyber space under these laws. In regards to Scotland, England and Wales, leaving young people open to suffer from revenge porn with less not a great chance of gaining a conviction under these new legislations.
Overall, it is early in relation to these laws and they are essentially the first of their kind in this specific field. So it is clear they won’t fully get on top of revenge porn over night. However, the acts do clearly need to gain further control over an ever growing offence which is extremely affecting young and vulnerable people. 

Lessig’s Modalities of Regulation 

Lessig’s modalities as explained in part A and in this YouTube clip by Lessig himself^[12]…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXOv1doHp88&feature=youtu.be

Is in relation to; Law, Market, Social Norms and Architecture.
 Law as discussed, has had developments in terms of stopping revenge porn and stamping down upon it. However, extensive research has made clear that the new legislation, at the time of this blog are not doing a sufficient job in stopping revenge pornography.
Market in terms of revenge porn cannot strongly influence or prevent revenge porn, thus is not one of the most important factors in this scenario. 
However, social norms do have a major part to play. This is for social norms put constraints upon people psychologically, if it is deemed as socially unacceptable to upload these images, causing more people to be chastised for it. Then ultimately many shall not participate in revenge porn, this sadly at the current moment is not always the case, with many people visiting cites in order to look at and or share the images further. This makes certain individuals feel, it is almost acceptable to upload these images and must be stamped out. 

In relation to Architecture, which is normally the most important constraint to prevent cyber crimes. For the unique case of revenge porn, it is arguably less prominent and important than other factors such as social norms and law. This is for many of the images posted online are taken and at the time freely provided to the receiver, through the format of ‘sexting’. Only for later that person to betray them in posting the images, thus it is very hard for architecture to foresee and deal with this form of illegality. However, it can still play its part, by warning young people in particular of the dangers within application such as Snapchat of sending these images. Furthermore, more can be done to educate the person committing the offence as to the consequences on distributing these images, both to the victim and the legal ramifications they bring upon themselves.

Conclusion 

To conclude, it is clear from this blog through extensive research, that the current law in this field is suffering from being new and at the forefront of the fight on revenge porn being the first of its kind. However, as previously stated much more needs to be done and developed upon to help prosecute and protect against revenge porn, in particular on young people who are often the victims of this crime. In addition, in relation to Lessig’s regulations social norms and law, with some input from architecture have a major role to play in terms of condemning and showing action shall be taken on anyone participating in the crime of revenge porn. Only then can an authority, really be stamped upon this wildfire of a relatively new and very serious cyber crime. 

References Primary + Secondary Sources 

1. The Cambridge Dictionary><Revenge Pornography Definition<
   
   
2. BBC.co.uk><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40566026<>’Thousands of children sexting, police say> Published July 11^th2017<>Last Accessed 10^thApril<
   
   
3. Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray y> Oxford Press 2016<> Chapter 14.5<
   
   
4. The Protection of Children Act 1978 c.37><>Legislation.gov<>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37<>Last Accessed 10^thApril<
   
   
5.  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 c.33>Legislation.gov.uk><https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents<>Last Accessed 10th April<
   
   
6. Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray y> Oxford Press 2016<> Chapter 14.5 page 419<
   
   
7. Washingtonpost.com><https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/03/revenge-porn-purveyor-hunter-moore-is-sentenced-to-prison/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bcd01107043b<>Hunter Moore case 2015, ‘IsAnyoneUp.com’<Last Accessed 10^thApril<
   
   
8. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 c.2, S.33-35>Legislation.gov.uk<>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/contents/enacted<>Last Accessed 11th April
   
   
9. AMP V Persons Unknown (2011) EWHC 3454 
   
   
10. BBC.co.uk<>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37278264<>’Revenge Porn: More than 200 prosecuted under the new law’ September 6^th<>Last Accessed 11^thApril<
    
    
11. BBC.co.uk><>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42689607<&gt; ‘Less than half porn cases passed to prosecutors’, by Marc Ellison 6^thof March 2018<>Last accessed 11^thApril<
    
    
12. Youtube><>https://youtu.be/EXOv1doHp88&lt; By The Berkman Klien Centre for Internet & Society<> Published August 5^th2011<>Last Accessed 11^thApril 2019<

Footnotes

---

^[1]Cambridge Dictionary- Revenge Porn Definition

^[2]BBC.co.uk report ‘Thousands of children sexting, police say’ 

^[3]Information Technology Law Book by Andrew Murray

^[4]Protection of Children Act 1978

^[5]Criminal Justice Act 1988

^[6]Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray

^[7]Washington Post Hunter Moore ‘IsAnyoneUp.com’ case

^[8]Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 S.33-35

^[9]AMP V Persons Unknown 2011 EWHC 3454

^[10]BBC report ‘Revenge Porn…’

^[11]BBC report by ‘Marc Ellison’

^[12]Lawrence Lessig Four types of regulation- YouTube

What is Copyright?

As referenced in the illustrious Oxford Dictionary.^[1]Copyright is the exclusive legal right, provided to the originator of a piece of work for a set number of years, to; print, publish, perform, film or record literary, artistic, or musical material.  

Introduction

Copyright is covered under civil law, and is a form of intellectual property. It has majorly ingrained itself in to the online environment in the internet age, with several high profile cases being taken to court as a result of alleged copyright infringement’s occurring online. This has thrust copyright into being one of the most hotly discussed and dealt with legal issues relating to cyber law. 

Historical Development 

In regards of the law on copyright in the online environment, it has had a very intriguing past particularly related to case law surrounding the issue. 
Firstly, to fully develop an understanding of how copyright has developed and transformed into what it is today in an online sense. Copyright law predating the modern internet age, must first be delved in to. 

https://youtu.be/H_aOHpn_vqQ

 This YouTube clip created by ‘Copy-Me’^[2] titled ‘Early Copyright History’- provides a good basis of how copyright developed hundreds of years preceding the internet age. The most important and relevant section discussed is the video is the Statute of Anne 1709 (Copyright Act 1709)^[3], this was a parliament statute emanating from the UK and is regarded as a revolutionary peace in relation to copyright. This is for it transformed a previously prehistoric look on copyright law and, made it fairer and more transparent to everyone rather than selected few in a censorship state type manor. The Statute of Anne allowed the creators to own their own work, as opposed to a monopoly with government chosen publishers being able to choose what work should be published or not. 
The further evolution of copyright law in the UK was slow, with the next prominent piece of legislation being hundreds of years later. This came in the form of  the Copyright Act  1911^[4], this act attempted to unify all previous legislation into one act which would govern all of copyright infringements, in turn this took away the common law of copyright. 
This was further engrossed and amended within The Copyright Act 1956^[5]. This act was brought in to deal with the advances in technology since the previous legislation, with a substantial technological advance where copyright was involved in. A key case that involves the act Is the case of- Independent Television Publications Limited V Time Out Limited  (1984) FSR 64^[6]
In this case, the plaintiff claimed a literary copyright against the defendant’s daily program through the 1956 Act which they claimed had been breached. The defendant used the defence of Fair dealing under Section 6 of the act, claiming they did not use a substantial section of the pursuers work.
It was Held that; there was a great deal of skill involved in preparing the daily show, and the defendant was using a great deal of this work. Furthermore, the defence of fair dealing under section 6 was for examples that used small parts of a persons work to review it. Thus, the defence of Fair dealing would not be sufficient here and the pursuer won the claim. 
This case is a good example of how the 1956 act properly governed over copyright, having a strict but fair overview of what should be deemed as enough to constitute an offence. However, the issue with this act is although in some cases it would be sufficient to cover technological advances, the act was truly made long before the internet age and a new updated law would be required to keep copyright law up to date. This was brought in through the amendment from the UK copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985^[7]. Although the amendment only lasted a few years before being overtaken by the most recent in copyright legislation.

Review of current law 

Which came into place with, The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988^[8]. This act is the most recent and relevant legislation in relation to Copyright law, with several amendments made to it since its inception. It allows for protection to^[9]‘Literary work’. Meaning work other than; musical work, which is written, spoken or sung and in addition includes a computer program. Thus, fully integrating software into the general principle for what is afforded copyright protection under legislation. In order for software to be provided with protection however, it must fulfil the criteria of; being original, been recorded and that it qualifies for protection within the UK. 
The Originality criteria was set with a low threshold in the case of- 
University of London Press ltd V University Tutorial Press Ltd^[10]. The case was regarding exam papers written by academics for the University of London. Posing the question of do exams constitute copyright for being original work. Which it was held in this case to be a sufficient means of constituting a copyright and thus protection was granted for originality. 
This case was the precedent set for the threshold in the UK for originality, which only requires that the author has not plagiarized the work. Thus, under the current legislation it is relatively easy for software to gain copyright protection as long as it is not copied from another source. This is certainly a positive aspect of the law as it allows good protection for ideas that are applying good skill and labour, which the UK legal system strongly considers when applying copyright to pieces of work. 
However, where many argue the law is not sufficient is in the context or ‘piracy’. This is when people illegally download products such as; films, TV shows and Music. The act allows those guilty of piracy to be taken to court on such matters. However, the issue with piracy is how widespread it is and hard to contain. As shown from Variety.com^[11], which stated how worldwide in 2017 ‘300 billion’ visits were made to illegal pirating sites, this was up ‘1.6%’ from 2016. This highlights just how many cases of illegal downloading occurs, this makes it extremely tough for law to cover and many argue the law regarding piracy is currently not fit for purpose and, must be cracked down upon as the vast majority have no consequences for piracy.

Lessig’s Modalities of regulation

Lessig’s modalities of regulation are the 4 methods of regulating cyber space set out by Lawrence Lessig. These are; Law, Market, Architecture and Norms. 
Lessig himself explains all four in this clip from YouTube^[12]

https://youtu.be/EXOv1doHp88

To summarise; Law in his context is mandates which can be used by government to enforce law online, this links to copyright through the legislations such as, the previously discussed and most current legislation of The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. 
Market is the economic forces which can regulate through, prices and price related signals which puts constrains upon people
Norms refer to social convictions that a person feels a need to follow and abide by such as, criticism if the person does something socially unacceptable.

Architecture is arguably the most important in relation to cyber law and refers to physical or technical constraints put on people, in a cyber context this can come in the form of firewalls or screens that pop up stating if they continue on to this page it is illegal and they may be prosecuted. This is a very good way of controlling cyber law and should arguably be used far more in copyright situations. Furthermore, it may be the way forward in terms of regulating piracy, this is for the current legal methods are very unlikely to prevent piracy, this is due to the sheer number of people participating in piracy. Which makes it in current form impossible to take legal action against all participants, architecture may have the solution to this by showing participants that if they continue on to download from this cite they shall be registered and can be prosecuted, this shall in theory prevent many from using the illegal means thus reducing piracy.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is clear from the extensive detail the blog enters into in terms of the history and evolution of copyright law in the UK. That major strides have been taken in the right direction, thus many shall be covered by copyright and can legally deal with any infringements put upon them. However, law has lead a gap in relation to piracy of copyrighted products for free, this is where Lessig’s modalities can provide a solution. In particular architecture in correlation with law. Which as suggested could help turn millions of people from piracy and towards paying the going rate for the copyrighted products. Although, it is not a perfect solution and wont end piracy it is very likely to reduce it majorly due to a more real sense of fear of prosecution for breaching copyright in this sense.

References- Primary + Secondary

1. The Oxford Dictionary<>Copyright Definition<
   
   
2. YouTube> Published by ‘Copy-Me’ October 13^th2014<> ‘Early Copyright History<>https://youtu.be/H_aOHpn_vqQ<>Last Accessed 7^thof April 2019<
   
   
3. The Guardian ‘The Statute of Anne’><August 6^th2007<>’The Guardian’<
   
   
4. Legislation.gov.uk>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/contents/enacted<>Copyright Act 1911 c.46<>Last Accessed 7^thApril 2019<
   
   
5. The Copyright Act 1956c.74
6. Westlaw.co.uk><Ihttps://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IC64D40A0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&context=5&crumb-action=append<Independent Television Publications Limited  V Time Out Limited (1984) FSR 64> Last Accessed 8^thApril 2019<
7. The UK copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985
8. the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) 
9. Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray y> Oxford Press 2016<> Chapter 10.2<
10. University of London Press Ltd V University Tutorial Press Ltd> Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray y> Oxford Press 2016<> Chapter 10.2.1<
11. Variety.com>Global Piracy in 2017>‘TV and Music Illegal activity rose, while film declined’<>By Todd Spangler March 21^st2018<>Last Accessed 8^thApril< 
12. Youtube><>https://youtu.be/EXOv1doHp88&lt; By The Berkman Klien Centre for Internet & Society<> Published August 5^th2011<>Last Accessed 8^thApril 2019<

Footnotes Part A

---

^[1]The Oxford Dictionary- Copyright Definition

^[2]Youtube- ‘Copy-Me’- Early Copyright History

^[3]Statute of Anne 1710

^[4]Copyright Act 1911 c. 46

^[5]The Copyright Act 1956

^[6]Independent Television Publications Limited V Time Out Limited (1984)

^[7]The UK copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985

^[8]The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988^[8]

^[9]Information Technology Law 3^rdEdition by Andrew Murray

^[10]University of London Press ltd V University Tutorial Press Ltd

^[11]Variety.com, By Todd Spangler, March 21^st2018

^[12]Lawrence Lessig Four types of regulation- YouTube