Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Sonics2k · 22-11-2020 11:03PM

I mean, technically it is copyright infringement, especially if making any form of profit off of it.

Same goes for any photographer who finds their content is being used on another platform with out the owners consent.

As for the talk of those lads sharing pictures of underage girls. I hope they get strung up in the city squares and left to rot.

Potential-Monke · 22-11-2020 11:06PM

Something else to keep in mind, depending on the country, the age of consent is significantly lower than Ireland. We consider anyone under 18 to be a child and any sexual videos or photos of them would be considered child porn. However, if that person was in, for example, Sweden, the age is 15. Or 12/13 in Sudan. Honduras and Brazil are 14.

List of countries by age of consent

Just food for thought there. And i'm not 100% on the different laws, so I'm not sure if the age of consent applies to personal or professional images or videos.

But I agree with some posters here:

- Images/Videos of underage as per Irish Law is wrong and should/would be prosecuted*
- Images/Videos of consenting adults shared on money making sites would be copyright if shared so not a criminal matter
- Images/Videos of consenting adults shared privately between each other subsequently shared without the consent of the sender is wrong, yes, but not illegal at the moment

The 'Revenge porn' legislation they want is a good step, but it needs to be fair to ensure someone doesn't try and stitch up an ex by saying their photos were shared when they weren't. The proof needs to be very strict imo. Don't get me wrong, it is needed, but it shouldn't be rushed in because of x in the media.

As for the alleged leak, there does appear to be a lack of concrete evidence at the moment, but cases like this can likely take years to put together. Discord shutting the server is a typical response by companies, not proof of wrong doing. As mentioned above, it could just be a case of the person breaching Discords T&C's. Only time will tell.

* Simply possessing images/videos of persons underage is a crime and doesn't require a "victim", as long as the images/videos can be proven to be of underage. So if there are proven underage images/videos, the uploaded/owner of the server can be prosecuted anyway.

anewme · 22-11-2020 11:26PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Something else to keep in mind, depending on the country, the age of consent is significantly lower than Ireland. We consider anyone under 18 to be a child and any sexual videos or photos of them would be considered child porn. However, if that person was in, for example, Sweden, the age is 15. Or 12/13 in Sudan. Honduras and Brazil are 14.

List of countries by age of consent

As for the alleged leak, there does appear to be a lack of concrete evidence at the moment, but cases like this can likely take years to put together. Discord shutting the server is a typical response by companies, not proof of wrong doing. As mentioned above, it could just be a case of the person breaching Discords T&C's. Only time will tell.

* Simply possessing images/videos of persons underage is a crime and doesn't require a "victim", as long as the images/videos can be proven to be of underage. So if there are proven underage images/videos, the uploaded/owner of the server can be prosecuted anyway.

They have shut the server and banned 500 ppl, and will be passing the details of the 500 ppl who downloaded the images to the Gardai. That's a fair bit stronger than you are saying abov, even at the early stage.

Potential-Monke · 22-11-2020 11:34PM

anewme wrote: »

They have shut the server and banned 500 ppl, and will be passing the details of the 500 ppl who downloaded the images to the Gardai. That's a fair bit stronger than you are saying abov, even at the early stage.

Fair enough then, didn't read up on it and only went by above comments. Seems to be more to it so.

22-11-2020 11:38PM

robinbird wrote: »

Sunday Times today claiming that selling porn on onlyfans is a "lifeline" for irish women and that anyone that jeopardises their income should be met with the full force of the law.

Jesus Christ..

anewme · 23-11-2020 12:06AM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Fair enough then, didn't read up on it and only went by above comments. Seems to be more to it so.

That update has only come out today, to be fair.

As you said, it's very recent and will take to be investigated.

anewme · 23-11-2020 12:09AM

robinbird wrote: »

Sunday Times today claiming that selling porn on onlyfans is a "lifeline" for irish women and that anyone that jeopardises their income should be met with the full force of the law.

Do you have a link to that article? Was that the exact language used?

MrMusician18 · 23-11-2020 12:13AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That doesn't make it legal.

It would be a civil matter though, not criminal.

Glebee · 23-11-2020 12:49AM

anewme wrote: »

Do you have a link to that article? Was that the exact language used?

"Hayden said her group tracked the alleged blackmailer to New Zealand and learnt he was a 16-year-old boy. She alerted his mother. Hayden believes most users on the forums with “Irish girls” images are themselves Irish, because they ask for women by town, county or even by name. One user searching for images accidentally stumbled across his cousin’s photos.

The forums included pictures of girls possibly as young as 14; videos of alleged rapes; and images taken surreptitiously as well as from Instagram and Facebook. However, Hayden said many photos were taken from OnlyFans, a website she described as a “lifesaver” for people to earn money in lockdown by sharing pictures with paid subscribers."

Sunday Times did not say it, the lady being interviewed quoted it.

anewme · 23-11-2020 12:57AM

Glebee wrote: »

"Hayden said her group tracked the alleged blackmailer to New Zealand and learnt he was a 16-year-old boy. She alerted his mother. Hayden believes most users on the forums with “Irish girls” images are themselves Irish, because they ask for women by town, county or even by name. One user searching for images accidentally stumbled across his cousin’s photos.

The forums included pictures of girls possibly as young as 14; videos of alleged rapes; and images taken surreptitiously as well as from Instagram and Facebook. However, Hayden said many photos were taken from OnlyFans, a website she described as a “lifesaver” for people to earn money in lockdown by sharing pictures with paid subscribers."

Sunday Times did not say it, the lady being interviewed quoted it.

That's very different than what was posted above.

Poster has adapted the words to fit their own Agenda.

Sunday Times today claiming that selling porn on onlyfans is a "lifeline" for irish women and that anyone that jeopardises their income should be met with the full force of the law.

Yurt2 · 23-11-2020 01:40AM

This is a bizarre story and the way feminists are mobilizing around it.

Internet safety courses delivered to schools emphasize that once you put a picture or a video online, you have no way of controlling where it goes, so just don't put something online that may come back to haunt you. That grown adults are putting content of themselves naked or in various sexual scenarios are getting surprised that it has been scraped and shared elsewhere is a bit silly. If there are underage images that's a separate matter and should be cracked down upon, but the above principle still applies.

The whole thing reminds me of Metallica giving out about Napster and file sharing.

There's a good reason why I don't put pictures of my junk (besides the fact it's not the prettiest unit) online - I don't want it landing back in my whastapp someday.

anewme · 23-11-2020 09:43AM

Looks like its bring tabled for approval tomorrow. Scope being widened.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1123/1179844-images-legislation/

kippy · 23-11-2020 09:54AM

anewme wrote: »

Looks like its bring tabled for approval tomorrow. Scope being widened.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1123/1179844-images-legislation/

Waters well and truely muddied there then.
Will be interested to see the impact of these new laws if they get through.

banie01 · 23-11-2020 09:59AM

Cui bono?
Cui bono...

6 days after this story has broken.
After claims repeated without actual verification across media channels and from our Minister for Justice.
There is still zero corroboration of this mass leak.
Indeed if one is to take the slant offered in the Sunday times article?
The leak really is more of a copyright and income protection problem, than it is about actual child and victim protection.

The Gardaí have confirmed that Onlyfans sharing isn't within their remit and that despite the leak containing social media profiles identifying "victims" their is yet to be a complaint from anyone associated with this leak?

The Victims alliance and others have been hanging the drum on this cache of thousands of vulnerable women and girls for over a week now.
This is a digital cache of the meat to the biggest current story in Ireland, yet noone outside the VA and those who broke the story on social media are even claiming to have seen it?

Really? I can't be the only one more than a little confused by that? Given how quickly every other "controversial" bit of digital media is leaked and widely available?

The legislation that McEntee is now championing?
Wasn't good enough for FG 3yrs ago?
Yet now she is under pressure for actions that could we'll see her face a vote of no confidence?
It's perfect, and a priority of her office?

The days of no smoke without fire are well and truly past us.
In the time of instant dissemination and media sharing at a click, if a story is running for a week without 3rd party corroboration?

One has to ask why?
Who is gaining?

seamus · 23-11-2020 10:54AM

Yurt! wrote: »

Internet safety courses delivered to schools emphasize that once you put a picture or a video online, you have no way of controlling where it goes, so just don't put something online that may come back to haunt you. That grown adults are putting content of themselves naked or in various sexual scenarios are getting surprised that it has been scraped and shared elsewhere is a bit silly. If there are underage images that's a separate matter and should be cracked down upon, but the above principle still applies.

All that aside, just because you took naked photos of yourself, doesn't mean it's your fault if they get stolen or leaked.

This is the "she was wearing a short skirt" claim.

Just because it's not a good idea to share these photos of onesself, does not make you at fault if someone takes advantage of that.

Exactly the same way that a woman walking alone in a dodgy part of town in the middle of the night is not a good idea, doesn't mean she bares any blame for what may befall her.

There is no good reason why sharing private intimate photos with an audience they weren't inteneded for, shouldn't be a criminal offence. It's a violation on the sexual assault scale. Lower down, but one nonetheless.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 11:02AM

There was a lady on the radio a few minutes ago giving it socks about the assaults on the victims of these supposed leaks ,from some alliance group who went on to say they were tracking people who share images on line including tracing and contacting the parents of a 16 year old lad in new Zealand .
WTF is actually going on here , what authority do they have to do such a thing

Feisar · 23-11-2020 11:06AM

Gatling wrote: »

There was a lady on the radio a few minutes ago giving it socks about the assaults on the victims of these supposed leaks ,from some alliance group who went on to say they were tracking people who share images on line including tracing and contacting the parents of a 16 year old lad in new Zealand .
WTF is actually going on here , what authority do they have to do such a thing

Self indulgent righteousness?

anewme · 23-11-2020 11:12AM

Gatling wrote: »

There was a lady on the radio a few minutes ago giving it socks about the assaults on the victims of these supposed leaks ,from some alliance group who went on to say they were tracking people who share images on line including tracing and contacting the parents of a 16 year old lad in new Zealand .
WTF is actually going on here , what authority do they have to do such a thing

She was Marie Hayden of the Victims Alliance Unit. It was on today FM. I was listening to it.

You are being very selective in your reporting here. What you are not saying is that she came across very well, was very well supported by the presenters and the legislation was viewed as very welcome. It was also on the News.

What you are failing to mention she pointed out that people have been abused and blackmailed and in many cases, images have been sent to family and friends. It was viewed as an abuse crime (power and control) rather than a pornography one.

What it is doing is pushing the responsibility back on the perpetrator as opposed to the victim. Its stopping victim blaming. You can tell people not to put images online, but you now also tell people if you share them, you are responsible and you are in trouble and there will be reprecussions.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 11:16AM

anewme wrote: »

She was Marie Hayden of the Victims Alliance Unit. It was on today FM. I was listening to it.

You are being very selective in your reporting here. What you are not saying is that she came across very well

No she came across a little mary Whitehouse ,

I'm tracing people and telling their mammies about something that there is Zero evidence has happened like nothing ,

New buzz word emergency survival sex work ,

anewme · 23-11-2020 11:19AM

Gatling wrote: »

No she came across a little mary Whitehouse ,

I'm tracing people and telling their mammies about something that there is Zero evidence has happened like nothing ,

She came across like that to you - not to others, nor the presenters on the Radio.

It was stressed that this legislation is very overdue.

The people who should be concerned about the legislation are those currently involved in poor conduct. Their power will go.

Triangle · 23-11-2020 11:23AM

anewme wrote: »

She was Marie Hayden of the Victims Alliance Unit. It was on today FM. I was listening to it.

You are being very selective in your reporting here. What you are not saying is that she came across very well, was very well supported by the presenters and the legislation was viewed as very welcome. It was also on the News.

What you are failing to mention she pointed out that people have been abused and blackmailed and in many cases, images have been sent to family and friends. It was viewed as an abuse crime (power and control) rather than a pornography one.

What it is doing is pushing the responsibility back on the perpetrator as opposed to the victim. Its stopping victim blaming. You can tell people not to put images online, but you now also tell people if you share them, you are responsible and you are in trouble and there will be reprecussions.

Not entirely sure I agree with you 100%.

While I agree the person who sells nudes isn't responsible in any way for a leak.
They have shown that they don't afix any moral issue with sharing nude pictures - more likely they have an issue with lost revenue.
In this case, I'd say its more a copyright issue vs morality. Which we have laws against already.

Note: this point is for over 18s selling images not anyone else.

Invidious · 23-11-2020 11:26AM

anewme wrote: »

What you are failing to mention she pointed out that people have been abused and blackmailed and in many cases, images have been sent to family and friends.

Under what circumstances, though?

To my mind, when a woman posts nude images to an OnlyFans account, she is knowingly sharing them with potentially thousands of strangers in return for money. If one of those subscribers then shares those images with someone else ... what is he guilty of? Copyright violation, possibly, but not abuse.

If a woman sends a nude picture to her boyfriend under the assumption that it's a non-commercial, private, intimate image for his eyes only, and he then shares it with others without her consent ... then yes, that's abusive. The first case isn't, though.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 11:28AM

anewme wrote: »

She came across like that to you -
The people who should be concerned about the legislation are those currently involved in poor conduct.

Yes to me ,and you cannot speak for the presenters they have to be impartial

But so we fake claims leading to emergency legislation that would see people face 7+ years in prison for supposedly Sharing a porn photo or videos they have paid for in the first place ,
Yes you could get the ****e knocked out of you on the street and your attacker get a suspended sentence ,

Doesn't add up at all ,

If there is blackmail involved there is already legislation ,
There is no crime here that's led to this emergency legislation being rammed through government .

Are we going to see more emergency legislations rammed through for crimes that didn't happen

seamus · 23-11-2020 11:34AM

Invidious wrote: »

To my mind, when a woman posts nude images to an OnlyFans account, she is knowingly sharing them with potentially thousands of strangers in return for money. If one of those subscribers then shares those images with someone else ... what is he guilty of? Copyright violation, possibly, but not abuse.

There has unfortunately been several distinct issues thrown into one here, and the narrative around it is dangerously close to, "We need laws to protect women from men" as opposed to "we need laws to protect people".

An unrelated case that's been throw into the mix is that of Dara Quigley. She had a mental break, was arrested walking down a Dublin street naked. A Garda later filmed the CCTV footage and shared it on WhatsApp.

Clearly, this Garda should be prosecuted.

But it's not the same thing as the distribution of private intimate material in the form of a pornography collection.

My worry is that my conflating all of these unrelated issues into one - revenge porn, child porn, exploitation, copyright - there's a risk that it will get dismissed as man-hating women wanting to make it illegal to look at a naked woman, and the very real problem of sharing private sexual material will be lost in the noise.

anewme · 23-11-2020 11:34AM

Gatling wrote: »

Yes to me ,and you cannot speak for the presenters they have to be impartial

But so we fake claims leading to emergency legislation that would see people face 7+ years in prison for supposedly Sharing a porn photo or videos they have paid for in the first place ,
Yes you could get the ****e knocked out of you on the street and your attacker get a suspended sentence ,

Doesn't add up at all ,

If there is blackmail involved there is already legislation ,
There is no crime here that's led to this emergency legislation being rammed through government .

Are we going to see more emergency legislations rammed through for crimes that didn't happen

Now again you are being not honest here. The presenters clearly said that the everyone would welcome the legislation. The presenters were not impartial in any way - it was clear that they believed the legislation is long overdue and fully supported it.

The legislation is coming whether you want it or not. Many do.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 11:41AM

anewme wrote: »

The presenters clearly said that the everyone would welcome the legislation.

The legislation is coming whether you want it or not. Many do.

According to you the majority want it odd the opinion on here seems to suggest otherwise ,

Amazing how a few wackos on twitter have much power to have emergency legislation rammed through government when there is already legislation to cover it

Gatling · 23-11-2020 11:44AM

Why don't we just ban onlyfans and online prostitution which it essentially is and work from there ,we gone from lets educate young people to not post and be pushed into sending compremising photos and videos online to now get on to onlyfans sell yourself and you have legal protection .

It's like they completely flopped the script from protection to recruitment for sex sites and this comes from so called victims advocates

Invidious · 23-11-2020 11:47AM

seamus wrote: »

My worry is that my conflating all of these unrelated issues into one - revenge porn, child porn, exploitation, copyright - there's a risk that it will get dismissed as man-hating women wanting to make it illegal to look at a naked woman, and the very real problem of sharing private sexual material will be lost in the noise.

Yes, you are correct.

I have no issues with laws against revenge porn, which already exist in other jurisdictions ... but such laws shouldn't extend to a commercial publishing platform designed to enable people to make money off their nude photos.

Once someone has knowingly shared her images with hundreds or even thousands of strangers, they are effectively in the public domain. If someone later recognizes her on OnlyFans and shares those images with her parents, her boss, etc., that's unfortunate ... but it's not the same thing as revenge porn.

anewme · 23-11-2020 11:47AM

Gatling wrote: »

According to you the majority want it odd the opinion on here seems to suggest otherwise ,

Amazing how a few wackos on twitter have much power to have emergency legislation rammed through government when there is already legislation to cover it

The opinion on here is not unexpected, But does not reflect the real world. But you know that.

sbsquarepants · 23-11-2020 11:49AM

Invidious wrote: »

Under what circumstances, though?

To my mind, when a woman posts nude images to an OnlyFans account, she is knowingly sharing them with potentially thousands of strangers in return for money. If one of those subscribers then shares those images with someone else ... what is he guilty of? Copyright violation, possibly, but not abuse.

If a woman sends a nude picture to her boyfriend under the assumption that it's a non-commercial, private, intimate image for his eyes only, and he then shares it with others without her consent ... then yes, that's abusive. The first case isn't, though.

I'm with you 100%

Those 2 cases are wildly different. The first example is in no way abusive, or exploitative, it's just a money thing. If you illegally stream a Kate Winslet movie and she gets her baps out in it (which she practically always does) you haven't violated her in some way, all you've done is you've deprived her (or someone else) of income, through breach of copyright. Token slap on the wrist at the absolute worst.

The second instance is abuse and you should have the book thrown at you for doing it, it's a very scummy thing to do and should be harshly punished. I'd have no problem with people doing jail time for shít like that.

Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Comments