Can You Be Arrested - Or Sued - For Viewing Or Sharing Nude Celebrity Photos?

[MrTrollkien]

In the United States, many states recognize celebrities? ?Right to Publicity? ? that is, their right to profit from their celebrity status. This means that celebrities can potentially sue any party who profits off illegally obtained images of their likeness, in an effort to recover any profit that party has earned. Parties who disseminate such images ? whether for profit or not ? may also be subjected to an injunction to stop dissemination, and to force the images to be deleted.

From a practical standpoint, however, while celebrities might seek to recover damages from those who profit off of their photos, it is difficult for them to target the non-profiting parties; such parties would not only need to be identified, but also sued for injunctive relief in numerous different courts all over the country ? an expensive and tedious process. As the costs to file and argue such cases can be considerable, and financial recovery may not be achieved ? either because no profits were earned so as to be recovered, or the prospect of collecting on a judgment may be remote ? people are unlikely to pursue such a course of action. And, of course, even if a celebrity were successful in obtaining an injunction against some parties, preventing others from distributing the photos could prove impossible. The bottom line is that once an image is leaked and spread on the Internet, it is likely ?out there? forever ? not just for technical reasons, but due to de facto limitations on legal recourse as well.

Complicating any lawsuit is also the fact that celebrities themselves would have to prove that they owned ? or had rights to ? the images in question. While such a requirement may sound strange to the layman ? shouldn?t it be obvious that the celebrities involved have rights to the images since the they are the ones pictured? ? under the law this is not a simple manner. United States copyright law normally gives copyright ownership of a photograph to its photographer, not to the subject in it. While obvious selfies would likely be found to be owned by the celebrities who took them, someone being sued about disseminating other pictures may claim that the celebrities portrayed in the images have no right to the pictures taken by others, and, therefore, no standing to sue; the burden would be on the celebrities to prove, among other things, that they obtained rights from the photographer, which also means being able to prove who took the picture. This may be complicated in situations in which a photo was taken during a previous relationship that has since ended, or, as often is the case, when the identity of the photographer cannot be proven.

Complicating matters even further is that once the leak of the photos became newsworthy (regardless of how exactly that is measured, it is likely that any such hurdle was overcome when it comes to this story), parties sharing the pictures ? even on for-profit sites ? can attempt to exert First Amendment rights; the media (which today, might include non-traditional media such as blogs) has the right to report the news. Celebrities may claim that there is no reason to share all of the photos in order to report the news, and such an argument may hold water, but what about if a news source were to provide only one or two example pictures? Considering how many news venues exist, all of the stolen pictures could potentially be shared in such fashion, with their sharers claiming First Amendment protections.


What is perhaps most fascinating is that under many areas of law the fact that those portrayed in the images are naked may be irrelevant. The issue is one of who owns the rights to the respective images, and whether privacy rights trump other competing rights. While it may seem strange to those of us not in the legal profession, in the eyes of some areas of law, the ?victims? of this crime are not the celebrities who have been humiliated, but the people who own the rights to the photos.

More at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephst...levant-laws-2/

[MrTrollkien]

Wouldn’t this already fall under existing copyright laws, i.e. the subject of the content retaining rights to the distribution of the resulting photos, videos, or performances? I understand that the subject of such media generally don’t retain such rights. But why should that force the enforcement of additional laws to account of the shortsightedness of a wealthy and vocal minority? Furthermore, the targets of these laws could likely be outside the jurisdiction of the US anyway. What then?

[PAR]

Wonder if this would apply to any links or images found even here on GFY...

[DWB]

I hope so.

[Biggy]

Yes.

You can be sued for anything, whether that person is right or wrong.

As a matter of right / wrong: I am fairly certain if you take known hacked photos of someone naked, and spread them around, you are not on the right side of the law. If you're married, and someone hacked nude pics of your wife and then someone else knew it was hacked and spread them around, do you think they would be 100% in the clear? If you answered yes, then you need your head examined, and your moral compass is totally fucked up. There's likely many things they could sue you for, the most general one being 'infliction of emotional distress.'

From a celebrity perspective, is it practical to get everybody - no. Do they theoretically have claims / arguments if they did want to - yes.

[bronco67]

These girls should be blaming themselves for being so stupid. If you don't want your naked body to be seen, then don't take pictures of it -- and sure as fuck don't store it in the cloud. If you're a regular girl, maybe you can get away with without worrying about pic theft, but a celebrity girl should know better.

[ottopottomouse]

If anyone is going to on the wrong end of finding out the answer to this it's Daisy.

[blinki bill]

Originally Posted by bronco67

These girls should be blaming themselves for being so stupid. If you don't want your naked body to be seen, then don't take pictures of it -- and sure as fuck don't store it in the cloud. If you're a regular girl, maybe you can get away with without worrying about pic theft, but a celebrity girl should know better.

I don't get how ppl upload their stuff online and think it safe and secure???
If you think your naked selfies are save on a cloud storage a have a better option for storing them online - voyeurweb

[xXXtesy10]

who sue? Deiz say it not affect you.

[xXXtesy10]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

If anyone is going to on the wrong end of finding out the answer to this it's Daisy.

Nobody do shit watch.

[ravenazrael]

I got a cease and desist letter from Kate Upton lawyers last week

[GAMEFINEST]

They must be tripping.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by ravenazrael

I got a cease and desist letter from Kate Upton lawyers last week

Kate Upton should just realize that seeing her titties is like a guy seeing any other titties. They're just two bags of meat. She should get over herself.

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by Biggy

Yes.

You can be sued for anything, whether that person is right or wrong.

QFT

/thread

[lock]

All are on case by case basis.

[kane]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Kate Upton should just realize that seeing her titties is like a guy seeing any other titties. They're just two bags of meat. She should get over herself.

But it's not like seeing any other titties. That is the difference.

Not to long ago Rolling Stone did a big story on Taylor Swift. She is constantly followed by paparazzi and she was telling the person interviewing her how she will purposely not do certain things because she knows if there is a value in some of these things to other people. The example she gave is walking around in her apartment in her underwear with the blinds open. She lives in New York. There are plenty of women (and guys) who living on upper floors of buildings that walk around wearing very little and have their blinds open. If someone sees them it might turn them on, but there is in real value to that beyond that turn on. If someone got a picture of Taylor Swift in her bra and panties it could be worth thousands and thousands of dollars.

If you go out there and find a girl who is just as good looking as Kate Upton and you take nude pictures of her and put them online, there might be some people interested in that. But since Kate Upton is famous her nude pictures, even if they aren't as hot as the other girl's have a ton more value.

As for being sued for looking at or even linking to celeb nude pics. It is highly unlikely. Quentin Tarantino tried to sue Gawker when they linked to a leaked copy of his script and ultimately dropped the case when it went nowhere.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by kane

But it's not like seeing any other titties. That is the difference.

Not to long ago Rolling Stone did a big story on Taylor Swift. She is constantly followed by paparazzi and she was telling the person interviewing her how she will purposely not do certain things because she knows if there is a value in some of these things to other people. The example she gave is walking around in her apartment in her underwear with the blinds open. She lives in New York. There are plenty of women (and guys) who living on upper floors of buildings that walk around wearing very little and have their blinds open. If someone sees them it might turn them on, but there is in real value to that beyond that turn on. If someone got a picture of Taylor Swift in her bra and panties it could be worth thousands and thousands of dollars.

If you go out there and find a girl who is just as good looking as Kate Upton and you take nude pictures of her and put them online, there might be some people interested in that. But since Kate Upton is famous her nude pictures, even if they aren't as hot as the other girl's have a ton more value.

As for being sued for looking at or even linking to celeb nude pics. It is highly unlikely. Quentin Tarantino tried to sue Gawker when they linked to a leaked copy of his script and ultimately dropped the case when it went nowhere.

Taylor Swift is a lot smarter than I thought.

and that was the point of my first post. As a celebrity chick, you should know seeing naked or compromising pics of yourself is worth a lot -- and you should protect against that.

[MrTrollkien]

Those fappenings sites are still up, they are growing on daily basis.

According to alexa, one of them is now in the top 1000 biggest sites online.

Kinda ridiculous....

[MrTrollkien]

And plus, I can see there is not a single dmca notice on google...

chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=thefappening.sexy&sort_ by=

[marlboroack]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Kate Upton should just realize that seeing her titties is like a guy seeing any other titties. They're just two bags of meat. She should get over herself.

ahahahahaa

[MrTrollkien]

Originally Posted by ravenazrael

I got a cease and desist letter from Kate Upton lawyers last week

Welcome to gfy... what else you steal?