this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
25 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1770 readers
22 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
25
Tauranga woman distributes OnlyFans content belonging to ex-husband’s new wife (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is quite a strange one for me, the content that was shared was created by the new wife and uploaded to OnlyFans herself, it was there to be found already.

I'm quite surprised this is considered such a serious act.

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Distributing explicit images of someone without their consent is distributing explicit images of someone without their consent at the end of the day.

I wouldn't like to see precedent where the courts start saying the context in which the image was originally produced somehow makes it fair game, because where is that line exactly?

It wasn't unreasonable for the victim to assume her own parents are never going to see her paywalled and copyrighted OF content. It was malicious and deliberately harmful use of a digital communication.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I disagree with your last point, regional restrictions are trivially easy to bypass, and it's entirely possible someone else could have found her content and alerted them.

She should have known this was a possibility, although it was definitely a malicious act on the part of the ex.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's a fair point. But they didn't just "alert" them - they distributed.

I'm not even legally allowed to copy stuff off TVNZ On Demand and redistribute it, even though it was intended for a much wider audience than this person's OF.

Personally I'm happy for revenge porn laws to be fairly draconian on principle. Otherwise it starts feeling like asking assault victims "but what were you wearing".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

But how far should that consent exert its authority?

If this was anything other than nudes then totally different laws would apply.

Ie. if it was a terribly embarrassing non-pornographic film that woman sold it online. You put yourself online doing something you didn’t want family to see and now your upset. At best I would imagine she could claim it was piracy.

But because it’s pornographic, she’s suddenly allowed full authority over her works? In my opinion she gave up that right when she sold it for commercial gain.

If anyone else with a modicum of fame turned around and went “yeah I didn’t want my professional porn redistributed, here’s every website with my tits on it that did a crime” they would be laughed at.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well what a shitty situation.

But, the lawyer for the defendant is correct, there is no way to effectively (my addition) geo-block content. A VPN or using the TOR Browser is all you need to appear to come from any other country, once something is on the internet there can be no expectation of privacy.

I have no problem with people wanting to use OF or be creators there, that is their choice. But both parties have to know that they are not private when they are there, the fact you visit OF or are a creator there is discoverable for someone motivated to discover that info.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I mean, just look at how much advertising there is for VPNs, where they explicitly tell you they can be used to bypass regional restrictions.

They had to know those regional restrictions were easy to bypass.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

It seems pretty cut and dried. This person was distributing copyrighted material as revenge porn in order to bully and harm somebody.

She violated copyright law, terms of service of onlyfans and cyber bullying laws.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well, she took screenshots and sent them to relatives and friends of the ex-husband's new wife. It's the doxxing they're on about, or?

However, he said this wasn't a case where the material had been accessed illegally, or where the defendant had been involved in the production of the material.

"This is imagery created by the victim for sale," Nabney said.

He also said the offending happened "in the context of extremely bitter proceedings in the family court".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, but I wouldn't have expected merely drawing their attention to it would be such a serious matter.

I wonder what would have happened if she had sent materiel that wasn't sexually explicit? Would merely telling people about the OnlyFans account have been enough?

[–] Taiatari 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Drawing attention to it does not require screenshots or so though a link to the profile would do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I wonder if sharing a link counts as distribution?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is something i didn't read before, because it's only the caption of an image in the article:

The charges the ex-wife faced for sharing explicit images from the OnlyFans account of her ex-husband's new wife were made under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

Harmful digital communications act

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So, taking sexually explicit images from their account and sharing them counts, but would merely linking to the content be enough?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If I remember correctly it counts for defamation and name suppression laws, but in this case since the link would just be to OPs own content it probably wouldn't.

It might still be charged under the act though, as bullying, but I am not a lawyer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Neither am I.

I'd love to have an actual legal professional weigh in on this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They would need to register first and subscribe to the channel. Maybe what she did, counts as extra-vindictive, because most wouldn't take those steps. She went an extra step of spending money of her own, to be able to take the screenshots.

Just out of my head, i would say that just sending a link to the content, probably wouldn't have had the same effect. It would depend on how tech savvy the recipient is in this case. Sending screenshots is the best way to have the maximum impact and fuck things up quickly.

She knew that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Linking would require the viewer to set up an account, log in and then pay to see the images.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree with most of the comments about the right of the victim, but I would add that the family has also right to not have a relative's nudes shoved into their screens.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, that's a very good point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

That's only distinguished from revenge porn by bickering about the word revenge.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is about piracy? Or geoblocking avoidance?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

distributing an intimate visual recording without consent

It's about the legal principle that people have the right to choose who/where/when to share explicit pictures of themselves with.

I think it was probably turned into a separate offence because piracy/copyright factors in profit, whereas the harms from revenge porn are usually closer to those of cyberbullying and hatemail.