I'm sure Gawker Media would be interested in the tape.

"No, iTunes is not for copying copyrighted materials. In fact, it is expressly against that." - You gave got to be joking.

Desecration does not require physical damage.

: )

"Generally, if you use a person as a subject of your photography, and it's for public consumption, there should be signed model releases..." - the comment you made that I was responding to was not specifically about these (or this type of) photos - it was about photos of people in general.

Generally speaking, it is for commercial use of images / likenesses for which model releases are required. Otherwise you would rarely see images of people in the news or on this website, etc. or in the media in general - or in any gallery or publication or website featuring any type of photojournalism or street…

In what way is he an accessory to any crime?

Correct - it doesn't require any intent of financial gain on the part of the person committing the offense. The point I made was that it detracts from the (potential) financial gain (sales-based income) of the artist. It has nothing to do with any financial gain on the offender's part (which is also why I pointed out…

The reason for that is that it can reasonably be argued that illegally downloading music results in a financial loss for the artist, as the person illegally downloading the product is illegally receiving a commercial product without paying for it (creating a loss of income for the artist). That does not (necessarily)…

Technically, the definition of "piracy"does not require copyright infringement (see def. 3; the word "especially" allows for situations in which copyright is not infringed upon).

Why so rude? There's no game here - I'm just wondering what sex crime the attendees would be complicit in, since you (by way of your self-contradicting argument) have acknowledged that they are not. It's a very simple question.

"I never said the artist was the thief either."*

"I never said the artist was the thief either." - you need to work on your reading comprehension skills (since you seem to think the artist as well as the attendees know who the hacker is). We have been over this point already. It was a point of clarification, not an accusation. Get it?

Yes - you said that to you, two completely different legal scenarios are the same. That shows you have no clear understanding of the law. I was pointing that out. You are arguing that what he is doing should be illegal by equating it to other types of crimes that are not analogous to the situation. So, on what basis…

I know you didn't say that, and was not claiming you did - I made the point simply to clarify why the artist is not connected to the crime of the images being stolen, since you equated what he is doing to someone committing burglary or stealing a car (thus, the follow-up sentence). Those scenarios are not analogous to…

Goods (as in physical property) and intellectual property are not the same thing, and the laws regarding each work differently. The images were already publicly available. If the pieces meet the criteria for "transformative work", then his appropriating them would not be a crime. Since he is not the hacker (I think we…

The objects that the artist would be displaying in this case are not stolen goods. The issue would be one of copyright / intellectual property rights. Since the images were already publicly available, the artist is not committing a crime by appropriating them, provided the art meets the criteria for "transformative…

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you (and many others here) are making declarative statements about how the artist / gallery owner / attendees should be prosecuted without any clear understanding of the law. Additionally, there is no evidence that this artist is also the hacker. The hacking and what…

It is not a crime in many, many places to take upskirt photos. In places where it is illegal, it is, to my knowledge, an issue of invasion of privacy rather than a sex crime. Regardless, what you find it as has no bearing on the law. Since the display of the pieces is most likely not illegal, attendees would not be…

The prints themselves would not be stolen goods.