Is sharing image images from OnlyFans revenge porn under English law?
<p><em>This is a hypothetical question about behaviour that would, at the very least, be copyright infringement, and isn't very nice, so shouldn't be done, but I'm specifically interested in the 'revenge porn' aspects.</em></p>
<p>V is a young woman who sells naked pictures of herself on OnlyFans.  D purchases those pictures and posts them online to forums for pornographic images, with no apparent motivation to harm V (though V finds this distressing).</p>
<p>Has D committed 'revenge porn' under English law by posting these intimate images without V's consent or does the fact V consented to the commercial sale of these images mean this is 'just' copyright infringement?</p>

<p>It depends, in part, what is meant (and what can be proven) by D's intent:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>no apparent motivation to harm V</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Revenge porn, or more accurately, &quot;<em>Disclosing, or threatening to disclose, private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress</em>&quot; contrary to <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/33?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 33</a> of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1)A person commits an offence if—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)the person discloses, or threatens to disclose, a private sexual photograph or film in which another individual (“the relevant individual”) appears,</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)by so doing, <strong>the person intends to cause distress to that individual</strong>, and</p>
</li>
<li><p>(c)the disclosure is, or would be, made without the consent of that individual.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>If there is no intent, then the offence is not committed.</p>
<p>If there is intent to cause distressto V, then <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/35?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">setion 35</a>
needs to be considered, especially subsection (2):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Meaning of “private” and “sexual”</p>
<p>(1)The following apply for the purposes of section 33.</p>
<p><strong>(2)A photograph or film is “private” if it shows something that is not of a kind ordinarily seen in public.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>(3)A photograph or film is “sexual” if—</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)it shows all or part of an individual's exposed genitals or pubic area,</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature, or</p>
</li>
<li><p>(c)its content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>I cannot find and caselaw or guidance on the particular issue - i.e. whether or not V's commercial sales of her own images would fall within this definition - and as D's intent is not clear, it would probably be a matter for a jury to decide.</p>

criminal-law england-and-wales sexual-offences