Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets(wired.com)
wired.com
Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
https://www.wired.com/story/sex-tapes-hush-money-hollywood-kevin-blatt/
31 comments
> Why would anyone think otherwise?
The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent.
Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.
The standard for libel varies depending whether the person bringing suit is a public figure or not. So it’s not a stretch for a layperson to imagine that the same might be true for these tapes, especially given the murky nature of many releases (some clandestine, some deliberate). Also this law is relatively recent.
Not saying it’s right, just saying one can imagine confusion on this issue.
Fair enough.
I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
I’d say spouting mean things about someone, is a far cry from publishing their sex lives while blackmailing them. I hope that the victims get recourse against the people in this article.
Yeah, anyone doing this, even if they believe it to be legal, must know they are doing wrong.
> Why would anyone think otherwise?
Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.
Because it is reported as happening enough without equally-visible consequences to suggest to casual observers, which most people are, that it must be legal.
[deleted]
>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent.
Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window).
Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.
Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window).
Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.
> Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent.
It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content.
If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.
It's actually illegal to distribute pornographic video content without a chain of documentation that is virtually impossible to have without both consent at time of creation and a valid chain of business directly addressing the documentation between the creator and distributor. This is important in sex tape cases, because while it may not violate state consent laws, it invariably violates federal record-keeping laws that apply to producers and distributors of pornographic content.
If there isn't a chain of business with explicit agreements on rights (purchase of media containing content will not suffice) between the creator and the distributor there are probably also copyright issues (and if not between the subject and the distributor, especially for celebrities, often state “image and likeness” rights issues) as well.
To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic". Nudity does not necessarily constitute pornography, else any R-rated movie would qualify. The "image and likeness" standard applies if there is some form of apparent endorsement. If I see Paris Hilton at the gas station I am allowed to snap her picture and sell it to the tabloids. I might blur out the gas station's logo before her face.
Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)
Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject. This came up in iPhone hacking cases. You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it. If you are in it then you didn't take it and so do not own it. The person with copyright is the person holding the camera. You need to purchase that copyright from them before sending your takedowns. There are ways to acquire copyrights without the owner's consent, but they are not cheap. (Default judgements against owners then foreclosing on the copyright as an assets etc.)
> To get to those rules the content must first be "pornographic".
Yes, the discussion I was responding to was literally and explictly about pornographic content.
> Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject.
That's what I said.
I also said that likeness rights flow from the subject, and that both were potential issues depending on where the chain of permissions do and do not reach.
> You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it
You cannot issue a DMCA takedown based on copyright on that basis, but, likewise, the DMCA safe harbor which applies only to copyright claims does not apply to violations of likeness rights at all. (Section 230 protections might apply to an independent host, but that has no bearing on the legality of the content simply who is liable for the illegality.)
Yes, the discussion I was responding to was literally and explictly about pornographic content.
> Copyright attaches to the creator, not the subject.
That's what I said.
I also said that likeness rights flow from the subject, and that both were potential issues depending on where the chain of permissions do and do not reach.
> You cannot demand a takedown of a picture just because you are in it
You cannot issue a DMCA takedown based on copyright on that basis, but, likewise, the DMCA safe harbor which applies only to copyright claims does not apply to violations of likeness rights at all. (Section 230 protections might apply to an independent host, but that has no bearing on the legality of the content simply who is liable for the illegality.)
The quote was from the article. Regardless, I’m not fully aware of the applicable laws here.
But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.
But, I would hope that consent to be filmed/photographed and consent to have said content distributed should always be two very different things. Further, just like other forms of art, the latter should always be retractable. One can write a book and have it published and distributed, but also cancel/fulfill the contract to prevent further distribution. I think this is even more relevant for private content such as sex-tapes, which are not the same as commercial pornography.
You are conflating multiple issues here, including whether consent is revokable (generally not), and copyright protections.
I remember a video circulating that had this Kevin guy talking to a vice camera crew and he took a fake call about some <mouth agape> 'Alist celebrity' just 'out of the blue'. Dude is corny...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5vsucz9byw
But as the top comment suggests who cares about this stuff. its ridiculous...
But as the top comment suggests who cares about this stuff. its ridiculous...
Show me a less trustworthy hat choice.
Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.
Why are celebrities famous in the first place? because people care what they are doing and wearing and eating.
The box office cares. The celebs that have signed multi-movie or multi-year contracts care. A leaked video clip will mean they are dropped from a project, costing them and the production millions. Hate and debate "cancel culture" all you want, the reality is that it exists. Any footage of extreme misogynistic activity will derail a celeb's career.
The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel. And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use. If a your movie is shooting in Vancouver would you risk a celeb with a cocaine problem crossing that boarder ten times a year?
The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel. And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use. If a your movie is shooting in Vancouver would you risk a celeb with a cocaine problem crossing that boarder ten times a year?
> The biggest movies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are filmed at locations all over the world. Evidence of illegal activity (ie drug use/possession) could seriously impede a celeb's ability or willingness to travel.
What? Has an anonymously leaked video of drug use ever prevented someone from entering another country? I've traveled a fair amount and gone through immigration in a number of different countries. Not once did any immigration official ever search the internet to see if there were any videos of me doing drugs. That is not a thing that happens.
> And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use.
Again. What? What are you talking about? If celebrities with a history of drug use never worked again, there would be no celebrities. Practically every celebrity has used drugs at one time or another.
The box office cares? Robert Downey Jr. was famous mostly for using drugs when he did Iron Man and went on to become one of the biggest stars in Hollywood after that.
What? Has an anonymously leaked video of drug use ever prevented someone from entering another country? I've traveled a fair amount and gone through immigration in a number of different countries. Not once did any immigration official ever search the internet to see if there were any videos of me doing drugs. That is not a thing that happens.
> And good luck being signed to any such production if you have a past history of drug use.
Again. What? What are you talking about? If celebrities with a history of drug use never worked again, there would be no celebrities. Practically every celebrity has used drugs at one time or another.
The box office cares? Robert Downey Jr. was famous mostly for using drugs when he did Iron Man and went on to become one of the biggest stars in Hollywood after that.
Yes. People under investigation are regularly advised by legal counsel not to leave the country as it causes complicated issues should a warrant be issued. Celebs with past drug issues are subject to a variety of monitoring, from casual to formal. But one does not hire someone who has current undisclosed issues, the type of thing a video might reveal. So the celeb will want to keep the evidence under wraps.
Many contracts have specific "no drugs" clauses. Evidence of drug use during such contracts is not good and really can impact future work.
Many contracts have specific "no drugs" clauses. Evidence of drug use during such contracts is not good and really can impact future work.
Nobody is under legal investigation because of an anonymously leaked video of drug use. That is not considered credible evidence anywhere. Many celebrities intentionally release videos of themselves doing drugs, with no consequences. For some, much of their celebrity is based around doing drugs (e.g. Snoop Dogg and marijuana)
Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it...
I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.
I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.
>Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it...
I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.
I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.
I'm interested now, is she blonde? If you don't care can you take some photos of her having sex? Why not?
Send me $500k and we can talk again.
I wonder how the rise of deepfakes will impact this topic.
As deepfakes become more believable and prevalent, celebrities will be able to just label any kind of sex-tape type leak as a deepfake. So hopefully this scumbag's business model is destroyed.
As deepfakes become more believable and prevalent, celebrities will be able to just label any kind of sex-tape type leak as a deepfake. So hopefully this scumbag's business model is destroyed.
The part about naming a price making it illegal... wow. I spent most of the article wondering how it wasn't clearly extortion. I mean going with something like "I was just telling the person that we had a leaked porn tape of theirs, we didn't expect them to feel obliged to pay us money, we didn't say that it could otherwise fall into the wrong hands"... what a scummy way around it. It is extortion in all but name.
Maybe some hn'ers who trade in exploit discovery could shed some light on how this in tech, as I guess it is maybe similar legal territory?
Maybe some hn'ers who trade in exploit discovery could shed some light on how this in tech, as I guess it is maybe similar legal territory?
In my experience the hacker usually gives you the exploit for free, but asks for a bounty. Aggressive ones may say that you should pay them with the implication that they may name and shame you if you don't.
Others will only agree to share the exploit if you pay, but I have always assumed that it is a scam or a really lame vulnerability.
Others will only agree to share the exploit if you pay, but I have always assumed that it is a scam or a really lame vulnerability.
Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I guess the latter kind is closer to the above.
The entire article borders between horrifying and disgusting. This is blackmail and extortion, regardless of how the law technically defines it. And naming the person responsible for it is just giving him more publicity. I used to consider Wired to have a solid journalistic standard, but this article has proven otherwise.
I could’ve excused Wired if they were just upfront about what’s happening, but instead they chose to skirt around the issue and avoid mentioning ethics or morals.
This is not the big shot. This is just a small fixer at the forefront. For the tiny cases.
Behind are the enties, the entertainment lawyers from the agencies and studios, behind that are the studio bosses, who might also pull the strings on the press, which they control, on the police which they control, and in some cases on the mafia or intelligence agencies to get rid of the really big problems. You'll read about a celeb suicide or drug death then.
There is also a huge economy of secrets behind the "closets". about 10% of the celebs are gay and hire "beards", models sho earn their money pretending to be a girlfriend. Also a huge economy of drug trading and "yachting", prostitution by celebs on yachts. With all these illegal activities and lies you are involved in a grander scheme, keeping it suppressed, you are owned, blackmailable. Not just Hollywood, also in the Asian counterparts. Not a healthy basis for their economy.
Behind are the enties, the entertainment lawyers from the agencies and studios, behind that are the studio bosses, who might also pull the strings on the press, which they control, on the police which they control, and in some cases on the mafia or intelligence agencies to get rid of the really big problems. You'll read about a celeb suicide or drug death then.
There is also a huge economy of secrets behind the "closets". about 10% of the celebs are gay and hire "beards", models sho earn their money pretending to be a girlfriend. Also a huge economy of drug trading and "yachting", prostitution by celebs on yachts. With all these illegal activities and lies you are involved in a grander scheme, keeping it suppressed, you are owned, blackmailable. Not just Hollywood, also in the Asian counterparts. Not a healthy basis for their economy.
Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.