EnglishEspañol

Revenge Porn Laws by State: All 50 States and DC (2026)

Independently fact-checked Law current as of August 9, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished August 4, 2026Reviewed August 9, 202619 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 4, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 14 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Revenge Porn Laws by State: All 50 States and DC (2026)

Key Takeaways

1Sharing someone else's intimate images without consent is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. South Carolina was the last state to criminalize it, in May 2025.
2A separate federal crime now applies nationwide. The Take It Down Act became Public Law 119-12 on May 19, 2025, and covers both real images and AI-generated digital forgeries.
3Penalties vary widely. About a dozen states treat a first offense as a felony, while most start at a misdemeanor and escalate on a repeat offense, for profit, or where the person depicted is a minor.
4Roughly two thirds of state criminal statutes now reach AI-generated or digitally altered images. The rest still require an image of the real person, which is the biggest coverage gap in the table below.
5Half of the states have a written civil cause of action. A federal civil claim under 15 U.S.C. 6851 is available everywhere and allows liquidated damages of $150,000.
6Under the Take It Down Act, covered platforms must remove reported images within 48 hours of a valid request. The FTC began enforcing that duty on May 19, 2026.

Yes. Sharing another adult's intimate images without their consent is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and since May 19, 2025 it is also a federal crime under the Take It Down Act. South Carolina was the last state to criminalize it, in May 2025.

What still differs from state to state is how serious the charge is, whether the statute reaches AI-generated images, and whether you can sue on your own. The table below sets out all 51 jurisdictions, with each cite linked to the official state source.

Is nonconsensual intimate imagery illegal everywhere?

Every US jurisdiction now has a criminal statute covering the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images. The statutes carry different names. Some are called revenge porn laws, others unlawful dissemination of an intimate image, disclosure of private images, sexual cyberharassment, or unlawful exposure. A few states never wrote a standalone law and instead folded the conduct into an existing offense: Alaska handles it inside its harassment statute at AS 11.61.120(a)(6), Iowa inside Iowa Code § 708.7, Massachusetts inside the criminal harassment statute at c. 265, § 43A, and Montana inside its privacy in communications statute at § 45-8-213.

Federal law now sits on top of all of it. Public Law 119-12 added a new subsection to 47 U.S.C. § 223 that makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate imagery of an identifiable adult, punishable by up to 2 years, or of a minor, punishable by up to 3 years. The same two-track structure applies to digital forgeries, and threats to publish carry the same 2-year and 3-year maximums where the image is authentic, and 18 months for an adult or 30 months for a minor where the threatened image is a digital forgery.

That matters most for the states whose own statutes have gaps. A person in Mississippi or New Mexico, whose criminal statutes do not reach AI-generated images, is not without a criminal remedy, because the federal digital-forgery provision applies there too.

Revenge porn laws by state, as of August 2026

Each state name in the deepfakes column links to that state's deepfake page for the AI-specific detail. Classification is compressed to the tiers that appear in the statute text itself. State legislatures amend these provisions constantly, so treat the table as current to August 2026 and open the linked statute before relying on a cell.

State	Criminal statute	Classification	Deepfakes covered?	State civil action
Alabama	Ala. Code § 13A-6-240	Class A misdemeanor; Class C felony on a repeat conviction	Yes (Alabama deepfake law)	No*
Alaska	AS 11.61.120(a)(6)	Class B misdemeanor (harassment in the second degree)	No (Alaska deepfake law)	No*
Arizona	A.R.S. § 13-1425	Class 5 felony; Class 4 felony if disclosed electronically; a threat to disclose is a Class 1 misdemeanor	Partial (threat tier only) (Arizona deepfake law)	Yes (A.R.S. § 12-741)
Arkansas	Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-314	Class A misdemeanor; reaches only family or household members and current or former dating partners	Yes, under a separate statute (§ 5-14-139) (Arkansas deepfake law)	Deepfakes only (§ 16-118-119)
California	Cal. Penal Code § 647(j)(4)	Misdemeanor; enhanced penalty for a repeat offense or a minor victim	Yes (California deepfake law)	Yes (Civ. Code § 1708.85)
Colorado	C.R.S. § 18-7-107	Class 1 misdemeanor plus a mandatory fine of up to $10,000	Yes (Colorado deepfake law)	Yes (C.R.S. § 13-21-1403)
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189c	Class A misdemeanor; Class D felony if sent to more than one person through an online or telecom service	No (Connecticut deepfake law)	No*
Delaware	11 Del. C. § 1335	Class A misdemeanor; Class G felony with aggravating factors such as profit or running a site for the purpose	Yes (Delaware deepfake law)	Yes (10 Del. C. § 7803)
District of Columbia	D.C. Code § 22-3052	Misdemeanor, up to 180 days (§ 22-3052); felony, up to 3 years for first-degree unlawful publication (§ 22-3053) where done with intent to harm or for financial gain	No (District of Columbia deepfake law)	No*
Florida	Fla. Stat. § 784.049	First degree misdemeanor; third degree felony on a repeat offense or where done for financial gain	No (Florida deepfake law)	Yes (same statute, § 784.049(7))
Georgia	O.C.G.A. § 16-11-90	Misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature (felony of 1 to 5 years on repeat) for general transmission; felony of 1 to 5 years on the FIRST offense (2 to 5 years on repeat) when posted to a site that advertises or promotes distributing sexually explicit content	Yes (Georgia deepfake law)	No*
Hawaii	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9	Class C felony	Yes (Hawaii deepfake law)	No*
Idaho	Idaho Code § 18-6605	Felony	No (not in this section) (Idaho deepfake law)	No*
Illinois	720 ILCS 5/11-23.5	Class 4 felony	No (Illinois deepfake law)	Yes (740 ILCS 190)
Indiana	Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8	Class A misdemeanor; Level 6 felony with a prior conviction under the section	Yes (Indiana deepfake law)	Yes (Ind. Code § 34-21.5-3-1)
Iowa	Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5)	Aggravated misdemeanor (harassment in the first degree); adults must register as sex offenders	Yes (Iowa deepfake law)	No*
Kansas	K.S.A. 21-6101	Severity level 8 person felony; severity level 5 person felony on a repeat conviction within five years	Yes (Kansas deepfake law)	No*
Kentucky	KRS 531.120	Class A misdemeanor; Class D felony on a later offense; Class D then Class C felony where done for profit	No (Kentucky deepfake law)	Limited (KRS 411.215, failure to remove on request)
Louisiana	La. R.S. 14:283.2	Felony; up to 2 years with or without hard labor and a fine of up to $10,000	No (Louisiana deepfake law)	No*
Maine	17-A M.R.S. § 511-A	Class D crime	Yes (Maine deepfake law)	No*
Maryland	Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-809	Misdemeanor, up to 2 years and a fine of up to $5,000	Yes (Maryland deepfake law)	Yes (same section, § 3-809)
Massachusetts	Mass. Gen. Laws c. 265, § 43A	Up to 2.5 years in a house of correction; up to 10 years in state prison on a repeat offense	Yes (Massachusetts deepfake law)	No*
Michigan	MCL 750.145e	Misdemeanor, up to 93 days; up to 1 year on a second or later violation	Yes, under a separate act (2025 PA 11) (Michigan deepfake law)	Deepfakes only (2025 PA 11)
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. § 617.261	Gross misdemeanor; felony of up to 3 years where an aggravating factor applies	No (Minnesota deepfake law)	No*
Mississippi	Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-64.1	Misdemeanor on a first offense; felony on a later offense or where committed for financial profit	No (Mississippi deepfake law)	No*
Missouri	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110	Class D felony; Class C felony where the person depicted is a minor or a vulnerable person	No (Missouri deepfake law)	Yes (same statute, § 573.110)
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213	Misdemeanor; felony of up to 5 years on a second or later conviction	Yes (Montana deepfake law)	No*
Nebraska	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(4)	Class I misdemeanor; Class IV felony on a second or later violation	No (Nebraska deepfake law)	No*
Nevada	NRS 200.780	Category D felony	Yes (Nevada deepfake law)	No*
New Hampshire	RSA 644:9-a	Class B felony	Yes (New Hampshire deepfake law)	No*
New Jersey	N.J.S. 2C:14-9	Crime of the third degree for disclosure, with a fine of up to $30,000 (current text shown as bracketed language in pending bill A4430; New Jersey publishes no free current code)	No (New Jersey deepfake law)	Yes (N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1)
New Mexico	NMSA 1978, § 30-37A-1	Misdemeanor; fourth degree felony on a second or later conviction	No (New Mexico deepfake law)	No*
New York	N.Y. Penal Law § 245.15	Class A misdemeanor	Yes (New York deepfake law)	Yes (Civ. Rights Law § 52-b)
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-190.5A	Class H felony for adults; Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense by a minor, then Class H felony	Yes (North Carolina deepfake law)	Yes (same section, § 14-190.5A(g))
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07.2	Class A misdemeanor; actual emotional distress or harm is an element of the offense	Partial (computer-generated images only) (North Dakota deepfake law)	No*
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.211	Fifth degree felony for real images; fourth degree felony for fabricated images, each escalating with priors	Yes (Ohio deepfake law)	Yes (§ 2307.66, cross-referenced in § 2917.211)
Oklahoma	21 O.S. § 1040.13b	Misdemeanor; felony where the offender gains anything of value or posts three or more images within six months	Yes (Oklahoma deepfake law)	No*
Oregon	ORS 163.472	Class A misdemeanor; Class C felony with a prior conviction under the section	Yes (Oregon deepfake law)	Yes (ORS 30.833)
Pennsylvania	18 Pa.C.S. § 3131	Second degree misdemeanor; first degree misdemeanor where the person depicted is a minor	Yes (Pennsylvania deepfake law)	Yes (42 Pa.C.S. § 8316.1)
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-3	Misdemeanor on a first offense; felony on a later offense, and for threats or extortion	Yes (Rhode Island deepfake law)	No*
South Carolina	S.C. Code § 16-15-332	Misdemeanor up to 1 year absent intent to harm, felony up to 5 years on a repeat; felony of up to 5 years (10 on repeat) where the actor acts with intent to harm or for profit	Yes (South Carolina deepfake law)	Yes (Act No. 131 of 2026)
South Dakota	SDCL 22-21-4	Class 1 misdemeanor for real images; Class 5 felony for digitally fabricated material; Class 6 felony on a repeat violation or where the victim is 17 or younger and the offender is 21 or older	Yes (South Dakota deepfake law)	No*
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-318	Class A misdemeanor	No (Tennessee deepfake law)	No*
Texas	Tex. Penal Code § 21.16	State jail felony	Yes, under a separate statute (§ 21.165) (Texas deepfake law)	Yes (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 98B)
Utah	Utah Code § 76-5b-203	Class A misdemeanor; third degree felony on a second or later conviction	Yes (Utah deepfake law)	No*
Vermont	13 V.S.A. § 2606	Up to 2 years and a $2,000 fine; up to 5 years and a $10,000 fine where done for financial profit	Yes (Vermont deepfake law)	Injunctive relief only (same section)
Virginia	Va. Code § 18.2-386.2	Class 1 misdemeanor	Yes (Virginia deepfake law)	Yes (Va. Code § 8.01-40.4)
Washington	RCW 9A.86.010	Gross misdemeanor; Class C felony with a prior conviction under the section	No (Washington deepfake law)	Yes (RCW 7.110.020)
West Virginia	W. Va. Code § 61-8-28a	Misdemeanor on a first offense; felony of up to 3 years on a second or later offense	Yes (West Virginia deepfake law)	Yes (W. Va. Code § 55-20-3)
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. § 942.09	Class A misdemeanor for posting a private representation; Class I felony for synthetic images and for nonconsensual capture; each tier escalates where the person depicted is under 18, to a Class I felony for posting and a Class H felony for the others	Yes (Wisconsin deepfake law)	Yes (Wis. Stat. § 995.50)
Wyoming	Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-306	Misdemeanor for real images; felony of up to 10 years under the separate synthetic-material statute	Yes, and more heavily punished under a separate statute (§ 6-4-307) (Wyoming deepfake law)	No*

* No dedicated state civil cause of action was located in the statute text we opened for this table. That is not proof none exists, and it does not affect the federal civil claim under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, which is available in every state.

Felony or misdemeanor: where the states actually differ

Thirteen states charge a first offense as a felony outright. Arizona (Class 5, rising to Class 4 for electronic disclosure), Hawaii (Class C), Idaho, Illinois (Class 4), Kansas (severity level 8 person felony), Louisiana (punishable by up to two years with or without hard labor), Missouri (Class D), Nevada (Category D), New Hampshire (Class B), New Jersey (third degree), North Carolina (Class H), Ohio (fifth degree), and Texas (state jail felony) all start there. Georgia also charges a first offense as a felony (1 to 5 years) when the image is posted to a website, gallery, or similar service that advertises or promotes distributing sexually explicit content (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-90(c)(2)); posting by any other electronic means stays a misdemeanor on a first offense there.

The larger group starts at a misdemeanor and escalates. The triggers repeat across the country: a prior conviction (Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, West Virginia), a profit or financial gain motive (Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Vermont), and a minor victim (California, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota).

Connecticut escalates on a different axis. Sending an image to one person is a Class A misdemeanor there, but sending it to more than one person through an online or telecommunications service is a Class D felony, which keys the penalty to how far the image travelled rather than to the offender's record.

A handful of states set penalties higher for synthetic images than for real ones. South Dakota grades real-image offenses as a Class 1 misdemeanor but digitally fabricated material as a Class 5 felony. Wyoming punishes the real-image offense as a misdemeanor and the separate synthetic sexual material offense by up to 10 years. Ohio grades fabricated sexual images one degree above real ones.

The deepfake gap

Thirty-three of the 51 jurisdictions have criminal statutes that reach AI-generated or digitally altered intimate images, and they get there by different drafting routes. Some fold synthetic content into the definition of the covered image, as Alabama does by covering a recording that a reasonable person would believe depicts an identifiable individual regardless of whether it is artificially generated. Some define a term of art: digitization in New York and Vermont, deep fake in Delaware and Michigan, digitally fabricated in Montana and South Dakota, synthetic image in New Hampshire, synthetic intimate representation in Wisconsin, artificially generated sexual depiction in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. Four states put the deepfake offense in an entirely separate statute: Arkansas at § 5-14-139, Michigan under the 2025 Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act, Texas at Penal Code § 21.165, and Wyoming at § 6-4-307.

Sixteen jurisdictions have criminal statutes that, in the text we opened, still describe only an image photographed or recorded of the real person: Alaska, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Washington.

Some of those gaps are the result of failed bills rather than oversight. New Mexico legislators introduced a sensitive deepfake image bill twice, as HB 530 in 2025 and HB 22 in 2026, and both died in committee. Mississippi SB 2437, the Prohibition of Exploitation by Deepfakes Act, died in committee on February 4, 2025. In New Jersey, A4430 would raise the disclosure offense from a third degree to a second degree crime but had not passed as of August 2026.

Two jurisdictions land in between. Arizona covers a realistic pictorial representation only in the threat tier, which is a Class 1 misdemeanor, not in the felony disclosure offense. North Dakota's definition of an intimate image includes a computer or computer-generated image but has no AI or synthetic-media language beyond that. Illinois shows a third pattern: the criminal statute at 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 has no deepfake language at all, but the civil act at 740 ILCS 190 § 10 expressly reaches an image that has been intentionally digitally altered.

If your state is in the gap list, the federal digital forgery provision still applies to your situation, and so may a separate state deepfake statute that sits outside the revenge porn law.

Civil remedies: suing the person who shared the images

Twenty-five of the 51 jurisdictions have a state civil cause of action we were able to locate, and they are structured three ways.

Some write the civil claim into the criminal statute itself. Florida § 784.049(7) allows injunctive relief, the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, punitive damages, and fees. Missouri § 573.110 sets damages at $10,000 or actual damages and states that humiliation and embarrassment alone are enough to show damages. North Carolina § 14-190.5A(g) sets liquidated damages at the higher of $1,000 per day of violation or $10,000.

Others adopted a uniform act. Colorado, Delaware, Washington, and West Virginia all enacted versions of the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, and South Carolina joined them in 2026 with Act No. 131. Those statutes turn on whether the defendant knew or acted with reckless disregard as to consent, privacy, and identifiability, and they generally provide that consenting to the creation of an image is not consent to its disclosure.

A third group has a general-purpose statute elsewhere in the code. New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b covers images created or altered by digitization and runs for the later of three years after publication or one year after discovery. Virginia § 8.01-40.4 allows suit whether or not the person was ever charged. Wisconsin § 995.50 treats conduct prohibited by § 942.09 as an invasion of privacy regardless of whether there was a criminal case.

Two are narrower than they look. Kentucky KRS 411.215 does not create liability for sharing the image at all; it creates liability of $1,000 per image per day against a site that fails to remove an image within a reasonable time after the depicted person asks. Vermont § 2606 provides injunctive relief inside the criminal section rather than a damages claim.

Wherever you live, 15 U.S.C. § 6851 is available. Enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization in 2022, it lets a person whose intimate visual depiction was disclosed in interstate commerce recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees, and it lets a guardian sue on behalf of a minor or an incapacitated or deceased person.

How federal and state law stack

The Take It Down Act does not replace state law. The statute text contains no preemption clause, so state criminal statutes continue to operate in full alongside the federal offense, and prosecutors at either level can act on the same conduct.

The Act also does not give you a right to sue a platform. It creates a criminal offense enforced by the Department of Justice and a notice-and-removal duty enforced by the FTC as an unfair or deceptive practice, with civil penalties of $53,088 per violation running to the government rather than to you. Your civil routes are 15 U.S.C. § 6851 and whatever your state provides.

The first conviction under the Act came on April 7, 2026, when a Columbus man pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Ohio to three counts: publication of digital forgeries, which is the Take It Down Act count, plus cyberstalking and producing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. On the platform side, the FTC began enforcement on May 19, 2026 and sent letters to fifteen major services. As of August 2026 we have found no completed FTC enforcement action against a platform under the Act.

Notable states

Virginia legislated first on deepfakes. Its 2019 amendment to § 18.2-386.2 extended the offense to a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying an image with the intent to depict an actual person, making it the first state law to reach synthetic intimate imagery. The offense itself remains a Class 1 misdemeanor.

South Carolina was last to criminalize the conduct and then moved quickly. Its May 2025 law at § 16-15-332 covers digitally forged intimate images and carries a felony tier for acting with intent to harm or profit, and the legislature added a civil remedy in 2026 through Act No. 131, the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, ratified on May 14, 2026.

Texas graded § 21.16 a Class A misdemeanor when it was enacted in 2015 and raised it to a state jail felony in 2017. What changed in 2025 was the deepfake side: S.B. 441 rewrote § 21.165's definition of deep fake media, added a threats offense and nudification-app provisions, and extended civil liability under Chapter 98B to artificial intimate visual material.

Michigan took the separate-act route in 2025 with the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act, which creates both a criminal offense, rising to a felony where the person acted for profit or with intent to harass, extort, threaten, or harm, and a civil action with damages, disgorgement of profit, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. Michigan's base revenge porn statute at MCL 750.145e remains a misdemeanor at both tiers.

If images of you have been posted

Document what is online before anything else, including URLs, screenshots, and timestamps, because content moves and disappears. Then use the platform's reporting process, which since May 19, 2026 carries the 48-hour federal removal duty for covered platforms. Our step-by-step guide on how to file a Take It Down request covers the order to do things in, the free hash-matching tools, and when to escalate to the FTC or the FBI.

How this table was verified

Every cell above rests on a source a researcher opened in August 2026, and where a source could not be opened, the cell says what was actually confirmed rather than what a summary claimed.

Several states do not publish free official code text. Georgia, Arkansas, and Mississippi route to commercial portals that blocked automated access, so those rows were verified against the official enacting legislation instead: Georgia House Bill 838 of 2014 plus the 2020 deepfake amendment in Senate Bill 337, Arkansas Act 304 of 2015, and Mississippi Senate Bill 2121 of 2021. New Jersey and New Mexico were verified the same way, from official bill text on the legislatures' own systems, because neither state hosts a browsable current code. Tennessee was read from the Secretary of State session-law PDFs; a 2025 amendment reported by news coverage was not opened, so the Tennessee row reflects the law through the 2022 amendment.

A few cells carry residual uncertainty that is worth naming. Minnesota reportedly has a separate civil statute at § 604.31 that we could not confirm this pass, so its civil cell reads No. Idaho reportedly enacted a synthetic-media provision in 2024 outside § 18-6605, which we did not verify, so the deepfake cell is limited to what § 18-6605 itself says. Oregon's civil cite at ORS 30.833 and Illinois's civil act at 740 ILCS 190 were identified but their full text was not independently opened.

A further set of cells was carried forward from earlier research rather than reopened in this pass, and is flagged here rather than presented as freshly checked: the California civil cite at Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.85, the Texas civil cite at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 98B, the Arkansas deepfake civil cite at § 16-118-119, and the 2024 Louisiana amendments to La. R.S. 14:283.2. Montana's misdemeanor tier is likewise an inference from the general penalty schedule rather than a figure stated in § 45-8-213 itself.

This article is general legal information about US federal and state law as of August 2026, not legal advice, and statutes change frequently. For advice about your own situation, speak with a lawyer licensed in your state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is revenge porn a felony?

It depends on the state and the facts. In Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas, a first offense is charged as a felony. Most other states start at a misdemeanor and escalate to a felony on a second conviction, where the person acted for profit, or where the person depicted is a minor. Under federal law, publishing nonconsensual intimate imagery of an adult carries up to 2 years, and up to 3 years where the person depicted is a minor.

Can I sue the person who shared my images?

Often yes. Twenty-five of the jurisdictions in the table have a state civil statute, several of which set statutory damages, for example $10,000 in Florida, Indiana, and Missouri, and up to $10,000 per defendant in Arizona. Separately, 15 U.S.C. 6851 gives a federal civil claim to any person whose intimate images were disclosed in interstate commerce, with actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000 plus costs and attorney fees, and it is available regardless of which state you live in. A lawyer licensed in your state can tell you which route fits your facts and how long you have to file.

What if the image is a deepfake and my state law does not mention AI?

The federal Take It Down Act reaches digital forgeries directly. It defines a digital forgery as a depiction created through software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or other computer-generated means that, viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic image. That federal provision applies in every state, including the states whose criminal statutes still describe only a photograph or recording of the real person. Some states also cover synthetic images through a separate statute rather than the main revenge porn law, which is why Arkansas, Michigan, Texas, and Wyoming are marked yes in the table.

What is the difference between the Take It Down Act and my state law?

They operate side by side. The Take It Down Act creates a federal crime prosecuted by the Department of Justice and a platform removal duty enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. State statutes create state crimes prosecuted by local prosecutors, and in many states a civil claim you can bring yourself. The Act contains no preemption clause, so a state law is not displaced by it. In practice a single incident can support a state charge, a federal charge, and a civil suit.

What do I do if a website will not take the image down?

Send a removal request through the platform's own reporting process first, and keep a copy of what you sent and when. Covered platforms are required to remove reported images within 48 hours of a valid request and to make reasonable efforts to find identical copies. If a platform misses that window, you can file a complaint with the FTC at TakeItDown.ftc.gov. Our guide on how to file a Take It Down request walks through the sequence, including the hash-matching tools run by NCMEC and StopNCII.

What if I was under 18 when the image was taken?

Images of a minor are handled on a separate and more serious track. Under the Take It Down Act, publishing nonconsensual intimate imagery of a minor carries up to 3 years rather than 2; a threat to publish a real image carries the same 3 years; a threat to publish a digital forgery of a minor carries up to 30 months. Sexual images of a minor may also be child sexual abuse material under other federal and state laws, which are reported to the NCMEC CyberTipline and to law enforcement. NCMEC also runs a free removal service at takeitdown.ncmec.org for images taken before you turned 18. It works by generating a digital fingerprint on your own device, so the image itself is not uploaded.

Do I have to prove the person meant to hurt me?

In many states, yes. Statutes in Arizona, New Hampshire, Oregon, Virginia, and others require intent to harass, harm, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. Several states instead require that the disclosure caused harm or serious emotional distress, which North Dakota and Utah write in as an element of the offense. A smaller group, including Indiana, asks only whether the person knew or should have known there was no consent. That difference is one of the main reasons the same conduct can be charged in one state and declined in another.

Updates

August 9, 2026

Added Georgia's felony-first-offense track: O.C.G.A. 16-11-90(c)(2) makes a first offense a felony (1-5 years) when the image is posted to a site that advertises or promotes distributing sexually explicit content, which the classification cell and the felony-first-offense list omitted entirely.

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 8, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 4, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Code of Alabama 1975, Title 13A: Criminal Code.

§ 13A-6-240Distributing a Private Image; Creating a Private Image.In forcecited in 11 of our articles

(a)(1) A person commits the crime of distributing a private image if he or she knowingly posts, emails, texts, transmits, or otherwise distributes a private image when the depicted individual has not consented in writing to the transmission and the depicted individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy against transmission of the private image. (2) A person commits the crime of creating a private image if he or she knowingly creates, records, or alters a private image when the depicted individual has not consented to the creation, recording, or alteration and the depicted individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy against the creation, recording, or alteration of the private image. (b)(1) For purposes of this section, “private image” means a photograph, digital image, video, film, or other recording of an individual who is identifiable from the recording itself or from the circumstances of its transmission and who is engaged in any act of sexually explicit conduct, as defined in Section 13A-12-190. (2) The term includes both of the following: a. A recording that has been edited, altered, or otherwise manipulated from its original form. b.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us

Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Z.P. v. Bryant (District Court, N.D. Alabama 2024)“…f privacy against transmission of the private image.” Ala. Code § 13A-6-240(a)(1), (b)(1). Mr. Bryant contends that…”
Xia v. Morris (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama 2024)“…possibly criminal under Alabama’s revenge porn statute at Ala. Code § 13A-6-240), the court further concludes that Mor…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alabama Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Alabama Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Victim Rights, Alabama Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

California Penal Code

§ 647In forcecited in 16 of our articles

Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and in subdivisions (k) and (l), a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) An individual who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, the individual manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (2) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with another person who is 18 years of age or older in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Cited in 593 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In re Giannini (1968) set aside convictions under Penal Code 647(a) because the prosecution introduced no evidence of community standards, and equated "lewd or dissolute" with obscenity only for the purpose of judging an allegedly obscene dance performed for an audience.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Morrison v. State Board of Education (California Supreme Court 1969, 1 Cal. 3d 214)“…public beach and the teacher was arrested for violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), and convicted, on his…”
People v. Laiwa (California Supreme Court 1983, 34 Cal. 3d 711)“…to arrest him for being under the influence of a narcotic. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) [1] He moved, however, to…”
In Re Cregler (California Supreme Court 1961, 56 Cal. 2d 308)✓A man previously convicted of theft was arrested for standing in a San Francisco bus station under the pre-1961 vagrancy version of section 647. The court rejected his vagueness challenge, reading loiter to require lingering to commit a crime, and denied habeas relief.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026)

Florida Statutes

§ 784.049Sexual cyberharassment.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) The Legislature finds that:(a) A person depicted in a sexually explicit image taken with the person’s consent may retain a reasonable expectation that the image will remain private despite sharing the image with another person. (b) It is becoming a common practice for persons to publish a sexually explicit image of another to Internet websites or to disseminate such an image through electronic means without the depicted person’s consent, contrary to the depicted person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) When such images are published on Internet websites, the images are able to be viewed indefinitely by persons worldwide and are able to be easily reproduced and shared. (d) The publication or dissemination of such images through the use of Internet websites or electronic means creates a permanent record of the depicted person’s private nudity or private sexually explicit conduct. (e) The existence of such images on Internet websites or the dissemination of such images without the consent of all parties depicted in the images causes those depicted in such images significant psychological harm.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us

Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Conradis v. Geiger (District Court, M.D. Florida 2021)“…Fla. Stat. § 784.049(2)(c). A sexually explicit image includ…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Florida Pornography Laws (2026): Bare Possession Is a Crime Here

Official Code of Georgia Annotated

§ 16-11-90Prohibition on nude or sexually explicit electronic transmissions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles

(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Harassment" means engaging in conduct directed at a depicted person that is intended to cause substantial emotional harm to the depicted person. (2) "Nudity" means: (A) The showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks witho

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov

Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Somerville v. White (2016) held that this Code section creates no private right of action. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed compensatory and punitive damages awarded to a woman whose nude photographs were emailed to her contacts, because a criminal statute enacted after July 1, 2010 must expressly provide a civil remedy.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Somerville v. White (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2016, 337 Ga. App. 414)✓A trial court found a man violated OCGA 16-11-90 by electronically transmitting nude photos of his ex-girlfriend and awarded her $500 plus $15,000 in punitive damages; the court held the criminal statute creates no private right of action and reversed both awards.
Rogers v. Dupree (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2017, 340 Ga. App. 811)“…based on a defendant’s counterclaim for “Intentional Tort (OCGA § 16-11-90).” Somerville v. White, 337 Ga. App…”
Joe Rogers, Jr. v. Hylton B. Dupree (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2017)“…based on a defendant’s counterclaim for “Intentional Tort (OCGA § 16-11-90).” Somerville v. White, 337 Ga. App. 41…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Georgia Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, Georgia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Criminal Penalties (2026)

Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 21-6101Breach of privacy.In forcecited in 26 of our articles

(a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority: (1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication; (2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in transmitting such message; (3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov

Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Recent Kansas decisions construe the image-dissemination subsection, K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8), not the interception subsections. State v. Ivy (2025) held a reasonable expectation of privacy under that subsection has a subjective and an objective component. State v. Jamil (2026), unpublished, found disseminating needs no jury definition.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Ivy (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)✓Ivy posted on Snapchat a sexual video his ex-girlfriend had recorded and texted him during their relationship; the court applied a subjective and objective two-part test and held a jury could find she kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, affirming the conviction.
In re Belcher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2024, 552 P.3d 1213)“…deotape, photograph, film or image obtained in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) or (a)(8), and amendments…”
State v. Jamil (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)✓Jamil secretly filmed a woman undressed and unconscious at his home, then sent the videos to her boyfriend; the court held that sharing with a single recipient can be disseminating under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) and that intent to harass could be inferred from his conduct.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Kansas Audio Recording Laws, Kansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Kansas Phone Call Recording Laws

Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 411: RIGHTS OF ACTION AND SURVIVAL OF ACTIONS

§ 411.215Action for failure to remove sexually explicit image from Web site, online service or application, or mobile application upon request -- Damages -- Statute of limitationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) A civil action may be maintained under this section against any person who, in violation of KRS 531.120(3), does not remove a sexually explicit image upon the request of the person depicted in the image. (2) A civil action may be maintained under this section whether or not the individual who is alleged to have violated KRS 531.120(3) has been charged or convicted under KRS 531.120. Liability under this section shall include damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each sexually explicit image for each day the image remains on the Web site after receipt of the request. (3) An action under this section shall be brought within two (2) years of the last act of conduct in violation of KRS 531.120(3).

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov

Also relied on in: Kentucky Pornography Laws (2026): Obscenity and Age Verification

Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 531: PORNOGRAPHY

§ 531.120Distribution of sexually explicit images without consentIn forcecited in 9 of our articles

(1) A person is guilty of distribution of sexually explicit images without consent when: (a) He or she intentionally distributes to any third party private erotic matter without the written consent of the person depicted, and does so with the intent to profit, or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted; and (b) The disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. (2) This section shall not apply to: (a) Images involving voluntary nudity or sexual conduct in public, commercial settings, or in a place where a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) Disclosures made in the public interest, including the reporting of unlawful conduct, or lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, corrections, legal proceedings, or medical treatment; (c) Disclosures of materials that constitute a matter of public concern; or (d) Internet service providers or telecommunications services, or interactive computer services, as defined in 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(f)(2), for content solely provided by another person.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov

Also relied on in: Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits, Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

Michigan Compiled Laws

§ 750.145eDissemination of sexually explicit visual material of another person; prohibition; exceptions; other violations of law; violation; penalty; definitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

(1) A person shall not intentionally and with the intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate disseminate any sexually explicit visual material of another person if all of the following conditions apply: (a) The other person is not less than 18 years of age. (b) The other person is identifiable from the sexually explicit visual material itself or information displayed in connection with the sexually explicit visual material. This subdivision does not apply if the identifying information is supplied by a person other than the disseminator. (c) The person obtains the sexually explicit visual material of the other person under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the sexually explicit visual material was to remain private. (d) The person knows or reasonably should know that the other person did not consent to the dissemination of the sexually explicit visual material.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov

Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

People v. Tombs (Michigan Court of Appeals 2004, 260 Mich. App. 201)“…hable as a misdemeanor, but that a violation of the current MCL 750.145e(4) is punishable as a felony.…”
People of Michigan v. John Dereck Mahl (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…ree counts of intentional dissemination of sexual material, MCL 750.145e. After sentencing,…”
American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Williams (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2024)“…because Bellestri accuses Williams of an act that violates MCL 750.145e – Dissemination of sexually explicitly…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: MCL 750.539j Penalties and Protections (2026), Michigan Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Michigan Pornography Laws (2026): Two Age-Verification Bills, Neither Enacted

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 617: ABORTION; OBSCENITY; NUISANCE

§ 617.261NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGESIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

Subdivision 1. Crime. It is a crime to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part, when: (1) the person is identifiable: (i) from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image or by another person; or (ii) from personal information displayed in connection with the image; (2) the actor knows or reasonably should know that the person depicted in the image does not consent to the dissemination; and (3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Subd. 2. Penalties. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2025)“…individual is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple.” Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 7(e) (2024); see also Minn. Sta…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties, Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

Ohio Revised Code

§ 2917.211Dissemination of image of another personIn forcecited in 8 of our articles

(A) As used in this section: (1) "Child-victim oriented offense" and "sexually oriented offense" have the same meanings as in section 2950.01 of the Revised Code.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov

Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals has twice found the evidence sufficient under this section for person-to-person sends. State v. Allison (2021) upheld a conviction where nude photographs of the victim were texted to her daughter, and State v. Gilmore (2024) did the same where nude images of an ex-girlfriend were emailed.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Hudson (Ohio Court of Appeals 2022, 2022 Ohio 3253)“…ssemination of private sexual images, each in violation of R.C. 2917.211, misdemeanors of the second degree. The…”
State v. Gilmore (Ohio Court of Appeals 2024, 2024 Ohio 2095)✓A man emailed nude and sexually explicit photos of his ex-girlfriend to her brother-in-law with taunting messages after she refused to reconcile; the court held the evidence sufficient on the elements of R.C. 2917.211 and affirmed the conviction.
State v. Bradley (Ohio Court of Appeals 2026, 2026 Ohio 232)✓After a breakup, a man stalked his ex, broke into her home, and sent nude photos and a video of her to her new boyfriend; the court held the R.C. 2917.211(B) dissemination count was committed separately from the stalking counts, so the offenses did not merge.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Ohio Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Ohio Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties, Ohio Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally

§ 18.2-386.2Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penaltyIn forcecited in 10 of our articles

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person (i) who is totally nude; (ii) who is in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or (iii) whose genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast are not exposed but such videographic or still image is obscene as defined in § 18.2-372 where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic. B.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov

Also relied on in: Virginia Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits, Virginia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, Virginia AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Code of Virginia, Title 8.01: Civil Remedies and Procedure

§ 8.01-40.4Civil action for unlawful creation of image of another or unlawful dissemination or sale of images of anotherIn forcecited in 9 of our articles

A. Any person injured by an individual who engaged in conduct that is prohibited under § 18.2-386.1 or 18.2-386.2, whether or not the individual has been charged with or convicted of the alleged violation, may sue therefor and recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. B. No action shall be commenced under this section more than two years after the later of (i) the date of the last act in violation of § 18.2-386.1 or 18.2-386.2, (ii) the date on which such person attained 18 years of age, or (iii) the date on which such person discovered or reasonably should have discovered the prohibited conduct. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 230(f), for content provided by another person.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov

Also relied on in: Virginia Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026), Virginia Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)

Revised Code of Washington

§ 7.110.020Civil cause of action.In force

(1) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 7.110.030, a depicted individual who is identifiable and who suffers harm from a person's intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of an intimate image that was private without the depicted individual's consent has a cause of action against the person if the person knew or acted with reckless disregard for whether: (a) The depicted individual did not consent to the disclosure; (b) The intimate image was private; and (c) The depicted individual was identifiable. (2) The following conduct by a depicted individual does not establish by itself that the individual consented to the disclosure of the intimate image which is the subject of an action under this chapter or that the individual lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy: (a) Consent to creation of the image; or (b) Previous consensual disclosure of the image. (3) A depicted individual who does not consent to the uncovering of the part of the body depicted in an intimate image of the individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy even if the image was created when the individual was in a public place.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov

Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Quinteros v. InnoGames (District Court, W.D. Washington 2024)“…stion cannot constitute an intimate image under the statute RCW 7.110.020, that the statute went into effect i…”
Doe v. T-Mobile USA Inc (District Court, E.D. Washington 2024)“…4.24.795 was 21 repealed in July 2023. It was replaced by Wash. Rev. Code § 7.110.020. 22 Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.795…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 942: Crimes Against Reputation, Privacy And Civil Liberties

§ 942.09Representations depicting nudity.In forcecited in 13 of our articles

(1) In this section: (a) “Captures a representation” means takes a photograph, makes a motion picture, videotape, recording, or other visual or audio representation, or records or stores in any medium data that represents a visual image. (ae) “Consent” means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to the act. A person who has not attained the age of 18 is incapable of consent. The following persons are presumed incapable of consent but the presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence, subject to the provisions of s. 972.11 (2): 1. A person suffering from a mental illness or defect that impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct. 2. A person who is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act. (ag) “Intimate representation” means any of the following: 1. A representation of a nude or partially nude person. 2. A representation of clothed, covered, or partially clothed or covered genitalia or buttock that is not otherwise visible to the public. 3. A representation of a person urinating, defecating, or using a feminine hygiene product. 4.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Nelson (2006) gave "reasonable expectation of privacy" in Wis. Stat. 942.09 its ordinary meaning, not the Fourth Amendment test. State v. Jahnke (2008) called that incomplete: the test is whether one reasonably expected not to be recorded nude. State v. Culver (2018) upheld the post-or-publish ban against overbreadth.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Nelson (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2006, 294 Wis. 2d 578)✓Nelson secretly videotaped neighbors through their bathroom window from next door. Affirming his 942.09(2)(a) conviction, the court held "reasonable expectation of privacy" has its ordinary meaning under an objective reasonable-person test, not Fourth Amendment case law.
State v. Culver (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2018, 384 Wis. 2d 222)✓Culver posted nude photos of a woman online without her consent and pleaded guilty under 942.09(3m)(a)2. The court rejected his overbreadth and vagueness attacks on the post-or-publish statute, found he lacked standing to raise a Commerce Clause claim, and affirmed.
State v. Chagnon (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2015, 364 Wis. 2d 719)✓Chagnon, a registered sex offender, cut 189 photos of clothed girls out of magazines and pasted them into a notebook. The court held that 942.09(1)(a)'s definition of "captures a representation" does not reach that conduct, and reversed the refusal to dismiss 23 counts.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Surveillance, and Privacy (2026), Wisconsin Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026), Wisconsin Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Privacy Crimes and Penalties (2026)

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 995: Miscellaneous Statutes

§ 995.50Right of privacy.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

(1) The right of privacy is recognized in this state. One whose privacy is unreasonably invaded is entitled to the following relief: (a) Equitable relief to prevent and restrain such invasion, excluding prior restraint against constitutionally protected communication privately and through the public media; (b) Compensatory damages based either on plaintiff’s loss or defendant’s unjust enrichment; and (c) A reasonable amount for attorney fees. (2) (am) In this section, “invasion of privacy” means any of the following: 1. Intrusion upon the privacy of another of a nature highly offensive to a reasonable person, except as provided under par. (bm), in a place that a reasonable person would consider private, or in a manner that is actionable for trespass. 2. The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian. 3.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. Swenson (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2007, 307 Wis. 2d 390)“…alleging a violation *395 of privacy under Wis. Stat. § 995.50 . 2 H&R Block asserts that…”
Gillund v. Meridian Mutual Insurance (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2009, 323 Wis. 2d 1)“…lso 2005 Wis. Act 155, § 51 (renumbering § 895.50 to Wis. Stat. § 995.50 ). Wisconsin Stat. § 995.50(2)(a)-(d),…”
Dumas v. Koebel (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2013, 352 Wis. 2d 13)“…very; (2) Dumas' invasion of privacy claim is precluded by Wis. Stat. § 995.50 (2)(c) (2011-12) 1 because the informa…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Wisconsin Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), Wisconsin Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Wisconsin GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)

West Virginia Code

§ 55-20-3Civil action.In force

(a) Except as otherwise provided in §55-20-4 of this code, a depicted individual who is identifiable and who suffers harm from a person’s intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of an intimate image that was private without the depicted individual’s consent including, but not limited to, a victim of the offense of sexual extortion or aggravated sexual extortion under §61-8B-6 of this code, has a cause of action against the person if the person knew or acted with reckless disregard for whether: (1) The depicted individual did not consent to the disclosure; (2) The intimate image was private; and (3) The depicted individual was identifiable. (b) The following conduct by a depicted individual does not establish, by itself, that the individual consented to the disclosure of the intimate image which is the subject of an action under this article or that the individual lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy: (1) Consent to creation of the image; or (2) Previous consensual disclosure of the image.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov

United States Code Title 15

§ 6851Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate imagesIn forcecited in 24 of our articles

In this section: The term “commercial pornographic content” means any material that is subject to the record keeping requirements under section 2257 of title 18. The term “consent” means an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by the individual free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. The term “depicted individual” means an individual whose body appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the visual depiction. The term “disclose” means to transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):District courts have begun applying the 15 U.S.C. 6851 private action for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images. Goodnight v. Hammons (2025) read its unwelcome conduct and public concern exceptions narrowly and let the claim proceed. Parkes v. Walker II (2025) dismissed a claim that did not plead interstate commerce.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

TILLE v. KAPLAN (District Court, D. New Jersey 2025)“…iolence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 (“VAWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Compl., D.E. 1, at 7-8. The allegati…”
Turner v. Echols (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2025)✓A pretrial detainee sued an FBI agent under 15 U.S.C. 6851 over intimate images found in a warrantless phone search; the court dismissed, finding he never alleged he was depicted, never plausibly alleged disclosure, and that the law enforcement exception applied.
Goodnight v. Hammons (District Court, W.D. Oklahoma 2025)✓A wife allegedly accessed her husband's devices, took his girlfriend's nude photos and sent them to a coworker; the court let the 15 U.S.C. 6851 claim proceed, rejecting the statute's unwelcome-conduct and public-concern exceptions as covering discovered infidelity.