>> or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent

Who told you that? Go ask Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton about that one. There are rules about material created without consent, but people do not retain a perpetual right to have formerly consentual material taken down. Hollywood, let alone the porn industry, would collapse overnight if every disgruntled star could have movies removed whenever they feel like it simply by withdrawing "consent" years after creation.

And for copyright, generally the person on camera is not holding the camera and so is not the creator/owner of the material. That is a regular issue where people attempt to use the dmca to remove images of themselves from websites.

▲

BigTTYGothGF 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Paris Hilton

She can't withdraw consent when she never gave it in the first place.

	▲	sandworm101 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris She claimes, later, to have not consented but given the sophistication of the production no reasonable person could believe she had no idea it was being filmed. She might not consent to the exact public release but she was certainly well aware of being filmed on the day. She consented to the creation. Same issue decades later during the iphone hacks/leaks. They did not consent to public release, but did consent to creation and private distribution, sometimes even taking and initially sharing the photos themselves.