Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton Nude Photos To Be Shown In Florida Art Exhibit (lifesized--on canvas)

[hifiguy]

31. Copyright issues and invasion of privacy issues

are two entirely different things that people are conflating in this discussion.

To prove damages in copyright you have to prove that the infringer cost you money by reason of its infringement - i.e., someone who sells bootleg DVDs who is damaging the copyright owner's work by selling bootlegs and depriving the holder of profits to which they are legally entitled. This does not necessarily involve copyright unless the photographer wants to pursue such a (dubious, on the face of it) claim. If the photographer had no intention of making money off the pictures, there are no damages, and where there are no damages, a case may be summarily dismissed under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its analogs which exist in every state in the union. At least that is what I was taught in law school.

An invasion of privacy claim - which is a purely civil tort action, not a criminal one - stands on different grounds entirely, but in all likelihood could only be brought against whoever hacked and uploaded the pix in the first place. And if it is a teenage hacker he is almost certainly judgment proof (a/k/a stone broke); the plaintiff in such cases is, to use a term i have heard a few judges and lawyers use, shit out of luck, damages-wise.