Same with deodorant.

This has nothing to do with sexting (texting nude photos of oneself to someone else). Your headline only serves to create more victims of one source of "revenge porn". Good going!

Did you reply to the intended comment? I was referencing your comment in reply to Ol' Auntie Em's comment to you - in support of what you were saying (I agree with you).

"..in regards to the degree of privacy the sender can expect?"

I'm sorry you went to all the trouble showing me how ignorant, self-contradictory and terrible at analogies you are. "I'm aware of why they are employed" / "Watermarks are actually employed based on ego, self-importance.." - obviously, you are not aware of why they are employed. It also seems you are really not…

As to your question, "..do you really think a watermark stops anyone from stealing an image?" - I have three answers for you;

"If I want an image, I can easily Photoshop the watermark out of the picture. " - yes, if you want to put in the time and for the image to potentially end up looking like crap, and give full evidence that you have violated Federal Copyright Law - a Federal crime that carries a penalty of up to $250,000 and up to five…

Watermarks on photos are for copyright protection. They are intended to prevent the image from being utilized in an unlicensed manner by unlicensed parties, not as a means of advertising the photographer's services. Using watermarks does not make the photographer a knucklehead, it indicates that they are smart about…

No, the bill is aimed at photographers in regards to their conduct while photographing children of celebrities (and other public figures)

What I understand is that you think she should be allowed to get away with it because you like her and feel sorry for her. That's not how the law works.

Not necessarily; the laws regarding this are very clear. There are lawyers who would take such a case on contingency. Celebrities don't get more protection, though the penalties may be much higher given that their likeness is worth a lot more than that of a "regular" person.

Then please, elaborate.

..if only we could be so lucky..

Anyone who is out in public - including children - may be photographed by anyone, for any reason. "Regular" kids (or people) have no actual right not to be photographed when out in public. Nobody has any legal protection from being photographed when out in public (except in situations where there is an implied sense…

I Detect a Correction that needs to be made in your comment; I think you meant to say, "If someone who is a sexual predator takes a picture of a child..."

Exactly what rights does this give rich parents that poor parents don't have?

Everyone is protected from harassment by the law. This doesn't protect celebrities or their children from harassment any more than any other citizen is already protected from harassment. It only increases certain penalties for harassing the children of celebrities in the course of taking photos of them because of who…

Also, in addition to my previous reply of about 45 minutes ago (sorry, had to run out of the house quickly) which I hope you also read, as it has some very relevant info in the responses to your questions;

Your ignorance does not excuse her crime. There is not a one-to-one correlation between posting a picture on facebook and receiving a certain dollar amount deposited to your bank account as a result. Like advertising, the public display is intended to draw interest to your cause / product, and generate invcome for…

Right - not interested in celebrity babies;