 |
| photo downloaded from the internet |
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT
What is it about?
The law makes it a crime to take photos of a naked person without his or her consent, and also to record a video of people having sex without their consent.
Important Things to remember:
1. Photo or Video Voyeurism means:
a. the act of taking a photo or video of a person/s performing a sexual act or any similar activity without the latter's consent, under circumstances where such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
b. capturing an image of the private area of a person/s without the latter's consent, under circumstances where such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or
c. the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video of such sexual act or similar activity through DVD, the internet, cellphones and similar means or devices without the written consent of the person/s involved, even though consent to record or take the photo or video of the same was initially given.
2. A person is guilty of Photo or Video Voyeurism when there is:
a. taking a photo or video of a person/s performing a sexual act or any similar activity or capturing an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area (?), buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
b. copying or reproducing such photo or video of a sexual act or any similar activity for a fee or for free, even though consent to record was given initially.
c. selling or distributing such photo or video of a sexual act, whether it be the original or a copy, even though consent to record was given initially.
d. publishing or broadcasting, whether in print or broadcast media of such sexual act, even though consent to record was given initially.
e. showing or exhibiting the photo or video of such sexual act through DVD, internet, cellphones and other similar means or device, even though consent to record was given initially.
3. If a person is found guilty of Photo or Video Voyeurism, he'll be looking at jail time of up to 7 years and a fine costing as much as P500,000.00!
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act found in LawPhil
Hi, thank you for this simplified overview of RA 9995. As a laymen, I am under the impression that sections (b) - (d) contradict (a). Given this scenario:
ReplyDeleteA photographer agrees with a model to take nude shots of her, with her agreement, with a proper model release contract, et c. (a) would say that's fine. Then (b) says, distributing copies is illegal. But the regular workflow of a photographer involves making copies of the taken images from the memory card to the hard drive of his workstation, to backup drives, maybe upload them to a cloud service provider. Technically speaking, all these processes involve making copies of the taken images. And any private cloud provider can be hacked and publicised, so images are potentially made public, even though it was not the photographer's intention.
Also, I have a question about jurisdiction (is that the right term)? Because this law is for the Philippines only, what if a photographer legally takes explicit photos, then he sells them to an outside company, e.g. in the US of A, and that company showcases and distributes copies of the images (e.g. for sales generation). The copyright naturally stays with the photographer, so he can be traced as creator of said images. The question would be, does (c) apply here, meaning, will the photographer be held liable for selling usage rights and copies of the images to the foreign corporation?
And a last one, if I may. What if images are hosted on the internet, but untraceable, e.g. on the so-called "Darknet?" Uploads to the Darknet cannot be traced, but they can be viewed publicly like any website, with minor technical effort. So let's say the photographer lost his memory card with the explicit images, and someone found it and uploaded them to the Darknet. The images still contain the photographer's camera and copyright info (full EXIF data). Is it the photographer who has to prove that he lost the card, or is it a legal entity that has to prove the photographer is the real person uploading the images to the Darknet? In other words, is it still in dubio pro reo?
Thank you for addressing any or all of my conerns. Looking forward to your reply. Cheers!
-- Ed
Sorry, disregard my other comment, I suppose (at least for now). I just noticed the only problem I might have with RA9995 is about the wording. So the only real clarification that I'm seeking, or so it seems, is about the word "such," in contexts as, "such photo or video or recording" (section 4b).
ReplyDeleteDoes the word "such" in sections (4) (b) - (d) generally refer to any depiction (photo, video, et c.) as defined in section (3) (basically, genitalia, or parts thereof)?
Or does "such" only refer to any depiction as defined in section (3) that was *acquired without consent*? And thus, will selling, et c., of any explicit images taken with the consent of the model (valid model release contract) remain lawful?
Thanks again,
Ed