The fact that you need to put art in scare quotes indicates that you've got some kind of inherent bias here, and it's obviously coloring your perspective.

This tells me you have no idea what the words "explicit" and "implicit" mean, in a legal context or otherwise.

I'm aware of what they mean. I think in most situations, at least the first time one party tries to snap some intimate photos, a direct question would be asked "Do you mind if I take these photos?" or "is it okay to take some pictures?" or even a "let's take some photos" waiting for a confirmation. Allowing the photographs to be taken in that context is explicit. Further along in the relationship the party may just take the phone out and start snapping as it's assumed that the consent continues and it's unnecessary to ask every time.
That's implicit consent unless the party suddenly objects at some point.

Nobody is revoking the creator's right to keep "art" that they have legally obtained informed consent for. For example, I think I should be able to write a contract that says I will allow you to take my photo, but that you have to destroy all copies of it after five years. You don't have to agree if you don't want to take the photo. Should the law prevent such a contract?

The problem is there was no duration specified at the time of the creation. That was not the contract as created, and it's a non-starter here. This is exactly like you agreeing to pose for photos then 5 years later suddenly going back and saying "oh yeah, you know what I know I agreed to them and you put all that work into them, maybe even exhibited them, etc, but now I'd like you to destroy them all, k thanx"

That's pure and simple bullshit.

The subject never specified they were for the length of the relationship, and there is no reason the photographer should be the one who suffers for them failing to specify the terms they wanted when they consented to have the work created. Now the article mentions that she took some herself. It's certainly within her rights to withdraw any implied usage rights when she shared those photos with him and ask for those to be destroyed/returned.

but "compromising" photos are a special case.

You talk about America being puritan but then think nude photos should get special care. Which is it? There is in fact no reason that nude photos should get special attention. A photo is a photo is a photo.

That is a totally unwarranted assumption, many such photos are taken without explicit consent in either the legal or common usage. But let's just run with the specific example you want to use, to keep things simple. He asks "Can I take some nude photos?" and she says "Yes, go ahead."

It's not unwarranted at all. Unless the pictures were taken secretly via hidden camera the issue of taking pictures was discussed and the subject agreed.

Otherwise if one party whipped out their camera and started snapping away and the other party didn't want it, they would have stated as much.

If someone is going to court to withdraw consent, it's because consent was given in the first place.

You continue to get hung up on the legal definitions and legal precedent (particularly American law, I assume). That's fine, but you need to be clear on that. It is quite probable that a judge in America, right now under current laws would not require someone to return or destroy all nude photos of their ex. Just because the subject hasn't given unlimited explicit consent is not LEGALLY important. Morally, ethically, logically, yes. Just not LEGALLY, right here, right now.

That's right, it isn't legally important, that's the way the law works. Oral contracts are also legally binding in many places. So while they may not have a signed piece of paper, the verbal consent given to take the photos is a contract to create those works.

If you don't think the law regarding photography has changed since 1814, then I'd have to say you were mistaken. All the laws that govern this case have changed dramatically since the invention of photography and they continue to evolve at different paces and in different directions depending on the jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the laws covering this area in America will change, but even more likely that courts will interpret existing laws in light of new technology as they have done in many cases, including this one in Germany.

It's changed, but an author's right to their own work has pretty much always been tantamount. This is a dangerous road to travel for art.

There is absolutely explicit consent given when the image is created. Unless the party is claiming they didn't consent at the time, consent was given.

Usage rights are not the same thing as ownership and copyright.

However, personal private usage rights to any photograph a photographer creates is always a given, regardless of any other usage rights. The photographer has a right to keep that in his personal collection. He may not be allowed to display it publicly, use it commercially, or even hang it in his house, but having the image sitting on a hard drive is absolutely within his rights.

Unless the subject has a written "work for hire" contract in most jurisdictions, the photographs are copyright and owned by the photographer. Changing your mind later because of a personal relationship doesn't somehow trump hundreds of years of law surrounding art.

That's why nude models have contracts. Often there is a clause that lets them back out later, but only if they compensate the artist.

No they do not.

That's why they have contracts, because if they get cold feet after the fact the photographer can point to it and say sorry, but you signed off on this, I'm not tossing away all my hard work. I don't know of any standard modelling contracts that include clauses for a model to change her mind later.

Really? Because I note that there has been a crack down on revenge porn sites in the US.

Yes, and what's that all about? Is the crackdown about consent to the creation of the photograph or usage?

They consented to having the image created at the time. They would admit as much by taking it to court to revoke their consent. It doesn't really matter how they consented, both parties are in agreement that consent was given at the time to create the photo. Once an image is created you can only talk about usage rights regarding any public usage of the photo. They certainly can't build a time machine and go back and revoke the consent they gave to actually take the picture at the time.

They may not want the photographer to be able to use the image by publicly displaying it going forward, but those are usage rights, that has nothing to do with the consent given when the photograph was taken. The artistic ownership and control of the image belongs to the author of the photo which the subject is not.

A photographer has copyright by virtue of being the author of a creative work. That's it. You do not need a release to own copyright. Model releases are not about copyright. They are about usage rights.

The fucking stupid coming out of you is just mind boggling.

While that may apply to future use, if consent is given to take a photo you can't go back and ask them to delete it either. They own the artistic copyright on that image. Whatever the merits may be. The subject consented when it was created. They might disallow further publishing of a photo, prevent it from being seen publicly, but to force someone to delete all traces of it is madness.

There is a lot of retaliatory butthurt behaviour on the internet.

You make one comment someone doesn't like and suddenly it's open season on everything you've ever said, regardless of it's worth. Somewhere like Reddit, someone will go through and downvote your last 40+ comments just because you got the better of them in a debate. Downvoting without commenting is the last vestige of the defeated. They know their argument can't hold water, so rather than concede the point, or move on, they go through and downvote anyone who spoke against them. While some comments are generally stupid enough that they need no reply (or further replies than the ones they've already received), someone who just abandons a discussion in favor of downvoting damages a community.

I can remember one exchange over on reddit, something on Korean language, where a native Korean chimes in as a reply to my comment "This guy is totally 100% right why is this being downvoted?" And it was all because of some other topic where a handful of butthurt children couldn't handle being proven wrong on a point so decided to run around downvoting anything else I'd posted within the last few days.

I've had it happen on Slashdot as well. Not in awhile, because I don't comment here as much as I used to (I used to frequently get mod points, but not that much recently). A few times, almost always after a debate with someone, the other party (I can only assume) would get mod points, and then past posts of mine, like ones over a week old, would suddenly all be moderated down as troll or something like that. I think I even made a post a few years ago about vindictive moderation.

Say what you will about all the access devs have now, but it was that time when things were greatest.

People were still experimenting. Not just with concepts but core mechanics. Interfaces, everything. It was the wild west.

People weren't yet dumbing things down to make them more "Accessible", when you got a game there wasn't going to be another one in 5 minutes. The internet wasn't everywhere. People still had slow connections when it came around. You read magazines, hunted for games and traded with friends.

The early days were really the best for the entirety of computing. Sure, things are flashy, we have such powerful machines now. Those were the days of great games and great indie games.

They never declared it impossible. They said it was a riskier more uncertain market with no return potential. There is a difference.

Because being free isn't a pass on criticism. I'm not sure when that happened. Yes all the people who have devoted time and effort and money on Linux deserve credit for doing so. But for the end consumer there is no real difference between an OS you got for free and one you paid $100 for. They still need to work and they still need to do what you need. Otherwise free doesn't mean anything. In the end they're still providing a product regardless of the cost and the consumer is going to form an opinion on it and give feedback. It's simply just not there yet and the only thing that's really going to get it there, in my opinion, at this point is a huge infusion of cash in exactly the right direction.

Their claim is that it is is and that might be why they don't want it on Linux. Because it is less suitable, less easy, it will cost more to port it over and since they don't yet see a big market for users they won't do it.

It's chicken and the egg. The existence of other apps is immaterial. Other apps might be suited to Linux, they might be easy, cost effective to port and they might be targeting people who might otherwise already use linux.

However, if you get them to do it, the users will come and it will start to snowball. It needs that push to get going and that only comes with money.

Because linux isn't a cohesive platform. That's the problem. As I was googling around one of the staff at adobe mentioned last year that Linux lacked standardized APIs on a forum thread regarding photoshop on Linux.

There is a perception that Linux is a bit like the wild west and in this day and age when you have stable mature platforms like Mac and Windows available, that's risky for developers. Even for big companies.

The intrinsic connection they have is market share and having already been the platform for this programs for a long time. Linux needs to really step up and say "Hey we're ready look at us" but they haven't had that moment yet.

Ubuntu is a step in the right direction. If a company with real money can get behind it and drive it to some kind of consumer ready level like Windows or Mac is, enthusiasts can still sit there and fork and tweak and do as they like, but getting a real ready version there that gets people's attention and wants to make people use it and develop for it is what will drive Linux's success.

It might not be directly Linux's fault that Microsoft doesn't make office for Linux, but they just got office for IOS not that long ago. Who knows what kind of wrangling that took. But if I was someone like Canonical I'd see just how much money it would take to convince Microsoft to make it for linux and make that happen. I'd do the same with programs like Photoshop, and other major programs that have major user bases that are seen as core apps. Valve already seems like they're moving in the direction of taking care of games so I'd make sure I was meeting with them and getting everyone on the same page. They don't have to arrange all the programs. If they do a few core programs that reach a large percentage of the user base, the other programs will start to get ported to linux as user base picks up. For example if they paid to get photoshop and office ported and linux went from the low single digits its sitting around now on the desktop up to 20% or a little higher I think you'd see companies start to take notice and start to focus a little more on it.

except that no one does.

"anyone" sounds like a lot of people, but Linux isn't just for coder enthusiasts with the know-how to fix their own problems. If linux is going to really take off on the desktop those things simply need to be already taken care of. With microsoft floundering around with windows 8 and tablets taking off, if someone wanted to really get market share away from microsoft dumping money into Linux like valve is doing here is a good start. Especially if it can be done in such a way that major game studios can easily make their games multiplatform. Games are what keep a lot of dedicated enthusiasts of all ages away from Linux. So are things like photoshop or microsoft office, or etc. A lot of the core products that people need just don't work well or at all. You can carry on about alternatives, but people don't want alternatives for those kinds of things. The OS, which is mostly background to a lot of people is easy to persuade them on, you can make it look and feel like windows. but gimp will never feel and look like photoshop.

You did nothing to justify that, either.

There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.

On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.

No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference. One you can't quite grasp which isn't a surprise.

Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll get you far.