Woman wins legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing her photos online
by Jerome Taylor, The Independent
Tuesday 10 January 2012
A woman who had sexually explicit self-portraits uploaded onto the internet after her mobile phone was stolen has won a landmark legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing the photos online.
The case has taken the best part of three years to wind its way through the courts and centres around the thorny question of whether the judiciary can stop the dissemination of information once it has leaked onto the often unregulated world of the internet.
According to a judgement published yesterday the woman who is only named in court papers as AMP had her phone stolen while she was at university in June 2008. The phone contained sexually explicit images which were meant solely for sharing between her and her boyfriend at the time.
Soon after the phone went missing the images were uploaded onto a Dutch website alongside a link to her Facebook profile and a number of personal details. Internet users alerted her to the fact that the images were out there and the website took the photos down after they were contacted by AMPs lawyers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-wins-legal-judgement-forbidding-anyone-from-sharing-her-photos-online-6287673.html
A British story with worldwide implications.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Towlie
(5,324 posts)Good or bad, the "Streisand Effect" is a fact of life that no court will ever change. Yes, the person who released the photos deserves punishment, but what was done cannot be undone. You can't remove information from the Internet, and attempts to do so through legal means are likely to cause unforeseen and undesirable consequences.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I'm glad of the ruling. I'd like to see her find the person who did it and have them held to account. There is a small problem; where does the line go?
If you upload to a site anyone can access, there is no expectation of privacy. Dissemination is a foregone conclusion.
If it's to a site friends or family can access, then is there legal recourse?
Personally, I believe that if you put it on line, you should expect it to get around... er, so to speak. My notion is that there is no such thing as a 'secret between two'.
This case, otoh, is clearly an invasion of privacy. I hope charges are brought.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"If it's to a site friends or family can access, then is there legal recourse? "
I'd imagine the the site's host has a terms of service agreement which details just that (much like Facebook has spelled out in its TOS).
"personally, I believe that if you put it on line, you should expect it to get around..."
I certainly don't believe that images on a person's phone or camera should get around which is what the case was predicated on.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I just said 'expect it'. Like never lending money with the expectation of it being paid back, or telling a 'secret' with the expectation it won't be shared, never post your personal effects with the expectation it will remain private.
Usually ToS are just for the sake of avoiding suit. In this case, I imagine the ToS of most sites would give leverage in a suit against someone posting your personal effects w/o your permission.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)"Personally, I believe that if you put it on line, you ***should*** expect it to get around". The word "should" *is* there.
if the person whose information is online is the one who put it there, voluntarily, then they should have thought it through a bit more before uploading.
However, in this case, the woman, who a. did not upload the images and b. was the victim of a criminal act, did not voluntarily put her personal information out in the street; therefore, she would not have any expectation that her business should or would be. However, someone who did not own the device on which these images are stored, took what was not theirs and did what they had no business doing.
This is no different than opening someone's mail, reading it, buying space in a newspaper and printing the contents--or worse yet, getting 1,000 flyers printed up of the information and papering a parking lot with it in an afternoon. Most sites, in their tos' say that you must be the owner of the images: and the person who uploaded them was not the owner of either the images or the device.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Not 'didn't'.
My bad typo. Those are the worst fuck-ups for what shouldn't.... er should be obvious reasons.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)She didn't upload the images anywhere.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)What is it with people always looking to create arguments out of thin air?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Rather than simply reinforcing a point.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)That is often the result of restating someone's position as though they had said something incorrect. I see it all the time around here.
So, you were 'reinforcing' the point?
[font color=white]Sure, fine. I guess I'll just buy it and let it go.[/font]
Okay. Thanks for stepping in and helping to clarify my position. Much appreciated.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The best you can expect is for the host to take the photos down if notified by a lawyer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't keep a thing on my phone that I wouldn't let my dear departed great granny see. Of course, I don't have a wild, naked, ooh-la-la life either, but even if I did, I don't think I'd wander around with naughty photos on my phone. That's just me, though. I'm pretty sure I'm not the norm in that regard.
The British aren't always the same as the rest of the world when it comes to this kind of stuff, either. They do tend towards the "good order and discipline" end of the spectrum. They're the ones with one of the best video surveillance systems in the world in their major cities.
I simply find that this thing is unenforceable--right now, the file may have her name on it, but someone who already has it could take it, copy it, and change the name to something more generic, and then file sharers would quickly become "less traceable" and we're off to the races all over again:
Lawyers acting on behalf of AMP went to court to try and get an injunction forbidding anyone from helping to disseminate the files. Judges are often reluctant to issue injunctions against information that has become so available it is impossible to stop as was seen from last years rows over Twitter where injunctions were routinely flouted.
In this case AMPs lawyers argued that because their client was not a celebrity, the number of people sharing the photographs of her were small and that they were mainly based in Britain and the EU. They added that their identities were largely traceable and could therefore be served with the injunction.
I figure that anything that goes out over the "airwaves" (wireless, telephone, what-have-you) has the potential to be seen by someone, and I behave accordingly. Hacking has gotten so common, and theft is always a problem as well--it's impossible to have "pure privacy" when you're communicating with others in this fashion.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)and upload pictures.
They wouldn't find any interesting photos on mine, but people should have a right to privacy. I hope this ruling helps.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You're still out a laptop, but you can encrypt your data so it isn't 'out there' if you lose physical control over it.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You could transfer the photos to your laptop which is encrypted, once you are done taking pictures, and then erase the memory card in the camera, for some protection. But you'd then want to take a bunch of pictures of stuff you don't care about to ensure the data on the card can't be recovered.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm not arguing that people stealing stuff should be left unpunished, I simply think that once you put something "out there," or someone else steals it and puts it out there, your right to privacy becomes a bit sketchy, even if you have taken steps to protect your stuff, and it's hard if not impossible to call people to account once the items go viral, if they ever do. Look at the ANONYMOUS guys--if it were so easy to shut this stuff down, they'd be long gone.
People on the net are famous for grabbing crap and passing it around, sometimes altering it for amusement or what-have-you--it's like cutting something out of the newspaper and sharing it with a neighbor, only on steroids.
I don't think this ruling will help in the big picture, it's "over there," in the UK and EU, and it is specific to one person. There will need to be a bunch more rulings similar to it, all 'round the world, before anyone can suggest any sort of precedent, I suspect. And then, there's the challenge of finding the people who are distributing the items--if they're doing it under cloaks of anonymity, proxies, and so forth, it could be difficult to find them.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and perhaps precedent.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)without knowing anything about this case?
alp227
(32,020 posts)This case is far far different from wikileaks or state secrets, if that was your prediction by "worldwide implications".
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Most of the planet doesn't know this woman's identity or what she looks like. How can the rotm internet user be aware that the image he/she just linked or posted is of her?
This could set an interesting 'sue the ignorant' precedent.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)And they were probably seeking to profit from it. I'd think it would be easy enough tailor so the effect isn't that someone randomly happening upon the images gets sued.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)"Knowingly" is difficult to prove. That might let many with malicious intent off the hook.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)It's not THAT difficult to prove. Not a lot of room to wiggle in posting the nude photos and personal details of someone who didn't give you permission.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Okay... look at the original post you responded to and see the point I'm talking about.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Which is impossible to have been distributed innocently. She didn't sue some kid who's friend's friend found something somewhere and forwarded it with zero context.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)My POINT, that I originally stated, perhaps not clearly enough, was this:
People who don't know her name or what she looks like may come upon and redistribute her images over the internet. If she can sue people who disseminate her image, can she sue them?
IF the standard is 'knowingly', then meeting the burden to PROVE that any given person, whether they know her or not, KNOWINGLY disseminated her image may be too difficult even IF there was malicious intent.
The clue is a particular word in this sentence:
"This could set an interesting 'sue the ignorant' precedent."
I'm not talking about what she DID or DIDN'T do, I'm talking about the implications of this. That's all, nothing more. Nothing to extrapolate or 'make wrong' about by holding it up to the precise circumstances.
Connaitrê?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)NEVER PUT ANYTHING ONLINE YOU WOULDN'T WANT EVERYONE TO SEE OR KNOW!
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)the copies on her phone...NEVER PUT ANYTHING ON THE NET OR PHONE THAT YOU DO NOT WANT EVERYONE AND THEY BROTHER TO SEE! I'm sure she didn't mean for them to end up where they did and needs to sue the person who stole and sold her photos tothat Dutch site BUT she should have never had those kind of photos on her phone to begin with.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)That doesn't really make a lot of sense. People have a right to expect others won't steal their personal information and exploit it. Storing something digitally doesn't make it public domain somehow.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)their personal information but the fact is that it's the FASTEST rising crime, (identity theft) and in fact, I belong to hair care site and the fact is when we have posted photos to show process, we WATERMARK them because so many photos have been stolen and posted on sites on the regular. Sad that you think that it doesn't make sense but it's a tragic fact that intimate photos should never be posted on the net...PERIOD.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)she had them stored on a device.
The thief is the one who not only indulged in the crime of theft, but wiretap/fraud by impersonating the owner of the device and the images and posting stolen material online. It's the same as fencing stolen property.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)OR TEXT ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING ELSE TO SEE. I was under the impression that she'd texted them to her man. In any case, again, it's just too easy for things like this to happen.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)we can concentrate on the laws that are in place for those criminals who feel they have an entitlement to steal property which doesn't belong to them and further demonstrate their malice towards their victmi by uploading images which they neither own nor have the rights to disseminate.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)but in the meantime, shred everything that has your name on it and never put anything you wouldn't want everyone to know on a phone or the internet.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)She should never have worn a short skirt...
the fact of the matter is HER STUFF SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN STOLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!! It wasn't the thief's property.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)I'm just saying that based on COPIOUS evidence that things like this happens when creeps steal images, JUST DON'T MAKE IT AVAILABLE. I shred everything with my name on it before throwing it away due to the epidemic of identity theft. Why would you leace such personal info on a phone? REALLY??!!
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)He had no release signed by the victim stating that she gave permission to disseminate her image.
If someone took a picture of you standing in front a restaurant after you and your spouse had dinner and then decided to use your face in an advertisment for something that you never gave your permission for your likeness to be used, there are laws out there that back up your grievance. Same with her. She never gave her permission for likeness to be used. .
the issue here isn't that she's putting it on a phone: the issue is that someone who DOES NOT OWN THE PHONE STOLE IT AND CHOSE TO UPLOAD IMAGES>>THAT HE DID NOT OWN OR CONTRACT TO OWN. It's bad enough that he stole the phone. But the posting of the images is malicious and predatory.
Upward
(115 posts)If you do and something bad happens, you have no right to expect your attackers will be prosecuted, right?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)It's in the same category as shredding things to prevent identity theft.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)if you're sexually harassed, you should quit because you remaining there means that you're as much to blame for the harassment.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)A person's face and image are not information. They are part of a person's identity.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Has the rest of the world fallen within that courts jurisdiction suddenly?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Lasher
(27,581 posts)And so on. I do not approve of what happened to this woman but I just wanted to share this precaution that was shared with me many years ago.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)I know you already said it, I'm just elaborating.
You are picking up what I am laying down.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Never e-mail anything to anyone that you wouldn't want published. Never have a private conversation.
Sorry, but none of this flies. The phone was stolen. The risk of exposure was higher because phones are portable, but it's perfectly reasonable to think you could send a private message to one person without its contents being stolen and published.
What people should perhaps realize, is that fetching pictures of nude people, females in particular, are considered a valuable commodity, and may be targeted for exploitation.
Still not her fault. At all.
Lasher
(27,581 posts)That's not writing them down.
I was just trying to pass on some good advice. If you use your cell phone to send nude pictures of yourself to your boyfriend, you take your chances. It's a stupid thing to do if you really don't want anyone else to see the photos.
AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)Blaming the victim is wrong. Some scumbag committed a crime.
Most of us, if we found a cell phone, would treat it like a found wallet, looking at it just enough to figure out how we might return it to the owner. Only a criminal would see how much loot they could get before the credit cards were canceled, only a criminal would upload the content to the internet. Most of us would feel a little embarrassed if we saw a photo obviously not intended for our eyes.
Electronics makes these crimes more likely, and the internet makes photos easy to access, but even before electronics there could be some creep taking photographs through your window without your knowledge and selling the photos in the back of a pulp magazine... or a photo store clerk making copies of a customer's kinky kodachromes... or a lover misplacing some racy Polaroids.
On the other hand most of the stuff on the internet isn't stolen, it's manufactured, just like the stuff in the pulp magazine ads used to be, with voyeur customers pretending it's real, or if they are not too bright, actually believing it's real.
And celebrities certainly have trouble with the paparazzi... although most of that is manufactured too.
I think the grievousness of this assault has a lot to do with the nature of Facebook and other electronic means of associating the photographs with the victim. I don't like Facebook for that reason. In most casual situations firm identities do not make the internet a safer, more enjoyable place. In the real world I don't check the identification of people I'm casually chatting with in a bar or a line at Disneyland.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)perhaps they need to start teaching classes to schoolchildren concerning the potential hazards of sexting
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The phone was stolen. She didn't publish the information beyond the one person she transmitted it to. This is the definition of privacy.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)EVERYONE KNOWS this shit can end up on the internet = they are DUMB AS FENCEPOSTS
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)It seems like common sense but they say that good sense ain't so common.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I think you're confusing "personal text message" with "Twitter post" or something. No reason a person should expect personal photos on their personal phone should become public property, or that a one-on-one transmission of same would be intercepted and published.
There's no difference here between a stolen phone and stolen photos in an album, unless you want to hold the fact that people carry their phones around, and therefore are more likely to lose them, against her.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Devil_Fish
(1,664 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I feel sorry for the victim but someone should have told her that this is going to cause her pictures to explode across the internet.