Bear in mind that Marc Randazza is pretty heavily invested in online extortion schemes that're based around user content being legal and protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in general; he's primarily employed by a company that makes their money that way, just in a less controversial field than revenge porn. It'll be interesting to see his reaction.

Edit: for the downvoters, he was and is hired on this issue by a network of sites called ViaView Inc; most news coverage mentions their site Bullyville. Substantially all of the ads on that network of sites are either for other sites in the network - especially Cheaterville.com - or for services offering to remove "defamatory" content from Cheaterville for fees in excess of $1000. (For a while early on in his crusade, there were no other external ads on any of the sites and no information on how to advertise with any of them.)

That popehat link is a different person (from last year no less, and apparently no resolution a year later?)

I don't suppose anyone knows what happened to Craig do they?

Generally, he has gone to ground.

If the photo is a "selfie" why can't they assert their copyright and force the photo to be taken down with a DMCA takedown notice to the web hosting company if the site owner can't be found or is unresponsive?

The photos often aren't selfies. If they are, the process for getting them removed is still onerous, and their publication remains malicious and (in this case and others) extortionate.

In this interview Hunter Moore, another revenge porn site runner, argues that the photos are intended for someone (why else would you take the photo?) so the copyright is shared.

While that's not how copyright works and many of the photos on his sites were stolen it seems to be enough to hold up DMCA's.

The interview is interesting, I don't think I've ever heard an NPR interviewer speak with such derision towards their interviewer.

[1] http://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/335039

What happens if the site is hosted in anywhere but US?

Where ever it is, there would be local laws. Next,the US reserves the right to prosecute its own citizens even if they commit what the US thinks is a crime in another country, regardless of local law. On top of that, there may be an extradition treaty in place.

Then to stretch a bitter point.......

Failing all that, of course we know the US will kidnap.... sorry, "render" people.... All that's needed there is for them to define blackmail as a form of terrorism. Heh, then I suppose one could justify a drone strike!!!