Coco law and where it does it apply

adam88

Hi, we had a discussion at work on the back of the recent only fans discussion and coco law came up. Hopefully someone can clarify.

basically, we were all in agreement that content shared with the understanding that it was only for the other partners eyes is totally off limits and should not be shared under any circumstances. The discussion and debate centred around content that may have been posted on a forum like only fans, is this content covered under coco’s law. Surely the content creator understands it going on a public forum? I’m aware that the argument at the time was that the creator is only put out because they’re not getting any revenue for it.

Anyone able to settle the debate for us ??

28064212

2. (1) A person who distributes, publishes or threatens to distribute or publish an intimate image of another person—

(a) without that other person’s consent, and

(b) with intent to cause harm to, or being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person.

The condition in 2(1)(a) is obviously met, unless you're in direct contact and they gave you explicit permission. 2(1)(b) is a lot more complicated, and it's not as simple as "if it's in public, it's fair game". If I have intimate pics of "Eleanor from Arizona", a woman I've never met, have never met anyone who knows her, am unlikely to ever do so, and share those pics to a Whatsapp group of four people, it's unlikely I will ever have a case to answer.

However, if I have pics of "Aisling from Castlebar", and share pics among a group of people who either know, or are likely to know her, it's quite likely I would be open to a prosecution

28064212

Just for completeness sake - subsection 2 requires either an intent to cause harm, or for you have been reckless about causing harm. Subsection 3 doesn't have that requirement: you're guilty of an offence if it causes harm, even if you couldn't have reasonably predicted it. So if I share the pics of Eleanor from Arizona, and it (completely coincidentally) turns out that a member of the Whatsapp group's neighbour is actually Eleanor's aunt, I'm liable to be prosecuted if that ends up causing her distress or harm

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is guilty of an offence where—

(a) he or she records, distributes or publishes an intimate image of another person without that other person’s consent, and

(b) that recording, distribution or publication, as the case may be, seriously interferes with that other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to that other person.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to a person who distributes or publishes an intimate image for the purpose of the prevention, investigation or prosecution of an offence under this section.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.

adam88

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117860619#Comment_117860619

What about if aisling from castelbar posted them on onlyfans and now she’s put out because Johnny from dundrum saw them without paying the 9.99 monthly fee????

Peregrinus

I don't think that would amount to serious interference with her peace or privacy or alarm, distress or harm.

A more marginal case might be where someone has posted intimate material to a pornsharing website but has subsequently regretted this, has taken the material down and is endeavouring to supress any reposting or wider circulation. Obviously in that case sharing material that you had obtained from the website at a time when it was still up might cause that person alarm, distress or harm, and it would be no defence to a section 3 charge to say that you didn't intend that.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117861864#Comment_117861864

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117861920#Comment_117861920

@Peregrinus Does the "serious interference" qualifier not only apply to the first part of the clause, i.e. the peace and privacy? It would still satisfy the requirement in subsection 3 if it only "causes alarm, distress or harm", no serious qualifier added.

@adam88 Separately, even if Aisling doesn't have a case under the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act because her only concern is loss of earnings, it seems likely that she would then have other avenues to pursue Johnny e.g. copyright/intellectual property laws.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117862027#Comment_117862027

I agree that requires either:

(a) serious interference with peace and privacy; or

(b) causing alarm, distress or harm.

Either of these is enough. If circulating the smutty pictures causes alarm, or distress, or harm, a s. 3 charge is possible.

And, yes, regardless of whether a s. 3 offence is caused, the owner of the intellectual property rights in the smutty pictures can sue for damages for breach of their rights. (Note that that may not be Aisling, though; her agreement with the website may mean that when she posted the pictures she assigned the copyright to the website operator). But the OP specifically asks whether someone sharing these pics might be exposed to criminal liability.