Jennifer Lawrence -- Non-Selfie Nude Pics Create Legal Hurdle

[jakeXT]

Jennifer Lawrence's fight to get her hacked nude photos removed from the Internet might have hit a legal snag -- the same one Ellen DeGeneres ran into with that famous Oscar selfie.

Sources connected to the investigation tell TMZ ... Lawrence's attorney fired off a letter to a porn website demanding it take down the nude photos of J-Law because she owns the copyright on the pics. We're told the website isn't buying that argument though.

The site's stance is ... since some of the pics are NOT selfies, the person who actually took those photos would most likely hold the copyright. In its response to Lawrence's attorney ... we're told the site is demanding proof of Jennifer's copyright, or the name of the person who snapped the shots.

Ironically, J-Law was prominent in the Oscar selfie -- which became the most retweeted photo ever when Ellen posted it. But as we told you, Bradley Cooper actually owns the shot because he took it.



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/03/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photos-leak-hacked-copyright/#ixzz3CG5L483v

[msanthrope]

1. Supporting precedent.....

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/22/342419651/who-owns-a-monkey-s-selfie-no-one-can-u-s-says

[FSogol]

2. How come the monkey takes a better pic than Bradley Cooper?

[msanthrope]

3. Because the monkey has more functioning brain than the average Hollywood actor. nt

[Dr. Strange]

9. The monkey didn't have to work with several actors to make the picture.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. Does this mean that photos uploaded to FB still belong to (are owned by) the person who took them?

Thanks.

[Kablooie]

12. I think when you join Facebook you cede copyright of uploaded photos to Facebook.

It's hidden somewhere in the document you agree to.
Of course if you didn't take the photo you don't have legal right to cede them to anyone else.

[mathematic]

15. Yes, the person that took them still has copyright

The other poster is wrong, you do not transfer copyright to Facebook. You grant them a royalty free license to use the image. They need this license to reproduce the image on various user pages, etc, that are the usual intended effects of sharing a photo on Facebook. I don't know of any website that forces people to transfer ownership of copyrighted materials.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. Thank you. Good to know.

[frazzled]

5. Websites should have to have signed release forms

Just as documentary filmmakers/videomakers must have signed release forms to use anyone's voice, image, or performance in their film—even from some bum on the street (ask Michael Moore, he'll tell you)—a website that makes money (which is just about any website that gets even a dollar of advertising revenue) should have to get release forms to post people's images (even yours or mine). That means you, Perez Hilton. (It gets a lot more complicated for Facebook and Twitter, but new rules are probably needed there, too.)

I know this will shock the faux "free speech" libertarians here. But here's the thing: Too many legal hurdles is a bad thing. At the same time, it's becoming all too apparent that too few legal hurdles is a bad thing. We have to balance people's right to obnoxious free expression with other people's rights to privacy and protection from slander or abuse. That's when government and the law have to step in to create smart, just, and constitutionally sound regulations.

I think we need look no farther than our own little community to see the breakdown in civility and comity that occurs when too few rules are applied or are applied too inconsistently or capriciously. The community breaks down altogether, and more and more people decide they just must leave town, abandoning it to the least civil. The Wild West of the Internet, where everything is permitted except rules of engagement and civility, is going to have to change.

We need to start thinking about what we want our virtual societies to look like. None of us would choose to live in a town in which people run around naked shouting obscenities all the time and making up all their own rules of driving because, it's a free country, you know. And we wouldn't tolerate theft under the premise that if you left your door unlocked while you're in the backyard, you're just asking me to take your stuff.

Liberals believe in government. We believe in the common good, not every man for himself. We believe that our governmental entities are the means by which we make life better for everyone, and that we must balance individual rights with the need for collective rights. Someone is going to have to figure out how this is going to start happening on the Internet. Because right now, I'm feeling like the Internet is becoming a place I don't want to reside in much longer. If bullies and thieves are allowed to take over, we might as well be living in some warlord-ruled village up in the Stans. We're supposed to be civilized people, folks. We'd better figure out a way to live up to that.

[jakeXT]

7. Upton is the niece of a Congressman, I wonder if that will influence things

Hollywood hacking scandal may be tipping point

...

In today’s digital universe, no such control is possible. But some in both Hollywood and Washington say it is past time to try to rein in the worst breaches without impeding First Amendment rights.

Kate Upton, the niece of Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was among those whose private nude images were apparently hacked. A committee spokeswoman emailed POLITICO on Monday that “the committee is continuing to monitor these latest breaches,” adding: “These incidents further underscore why data security legislation is needed, and the committee is continuing to work toward a workable and bipartisan solution.”

Lawrence’s spokeswoman, Liz Mahoney, told news agencies that “the authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photo.”

A lawyer for Kate Upton, Lawrence Shire, called the hacked images of his client “an outrageous violation” of her privacy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hollywood-hacking-scandal-jennifer-lawrence-kate-upton-110531.html

[Kablooie]

13. The Constitution doesn't have an explicit protection of privacy.

Some SCOTUS judges believe it's not even implied. (Thomas and Scalia of course)
So a lawsuit based on invasion of privacy may be difficult unless new laws are created.

[Ms. Toad]

17. It isn't a constitutional privacy issue -

Clams would be brought under state right of persona (for commercial use) or tort law prohibiting public disclosure of private information. The details will vary from state to state.

[Nye Bevan]

10. So someone who wants to post a picture of their cat on DU

would have to submit the paperwork to Skinner in advance?

[Ms. Toad]

18. Releases aren't required for cats.

And to the extent they would be required for commercial use (dependent on state law), the act of uploading your own picture would grant an implied license for any commercial benefit DU gained. Now if the DU admins happened to find your photo among the nude celebrity photos and they wanted to post it here for their own commercial benefit, in most instances they would have to get paperwork from you.

You can stick your photo (or that of your cat) anywhere the site rules allow it - but if someone else wanted to post your photo here, that someone else might (depending on state law) have to get a release.

[mythology]

6. TMZ is just utterly worthless

Sadly I think they might win, but they are so sleazy.

[LisaL]

8. What does TMZ have to do with it?

They haven't posted the photos.

[Kablooie]

11. What if the camera is owned by someone other than the photographer?

Do they have any claim to the photos?

Or if the photo is made at the behest and under the direction of someone other then the person pressing the button?

What about an automated timer photo? Is it copyright able and by who?

[jakeXT]

14. If you are involved with the setup there could be something, but not everything

First up, I've seen many people insisting that the camera owner gets the copyright on any photo taken with their camera. If you read the comments on various other news stories that have covered this, people say this so confidently. They're almost certainly wrong. There may be some exceptional cases where that's true, but for the most part it's not true. The confusion here is between ownership of the photo itself and the copyright on the photo. This is an issue that confuses many people who don't deal much with copyright law, but the photo and the copyright on the photo are two separate things.

...

Under US law (we'll deal with elsewhere soon), you have to have made the creative contributions (the copyrightable aspects) to the image to have it qualify for any copyright protection (and then, it's only the creative aspects that get the copyright). Thus, you could argue that if the photographer had set up the camera, framed the shot, and simply let the monkey click the shutter, perhaps there is some copyright there (though, even then it would likely be limited to some of the framing, and not much else). But David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot. He's stated that the monkeys were playing with the shiny objects and when one pushed the shutter, the noise interested them and they kept it up. It would be difficult to argue he made any sort of creative contribution here to warrant copyright.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-portraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml

[davidn3600]

19. Does she really believe she can get these pictures complely wiped from the internet?

Once something is on the internet, it stays on the internet.

Her pictures are probably on millions of computers all over the world.

[Ms. Toad]

20. The issue isn't really whether she has a right to have them taken down (she does)

But whether she can use the quick take-down provisions of copyright law (~24 hours) v. the much slower (months) workings of a court claim to infringement of her right of persona

[fadedrose]

21. My sympathies are with the actress

or actresses who are just as beautiful and talented as Lawrence whose pictures weren't hacked and they are missing out on all this publicity - the kind that lasts a lifetime. Hacking now won't help them, they are "2nd" choice.