teenager sues over porn pic

A

Atom

Registered Senior Member
A teenage photographer is suing a US porn film company for damages after it used a photo of her aged 14 on the front cover of one of its DVDs.

Lara Jade Coton, now 18, was "shocked and disgusted" that her self-portrait, which she put on the internet, had been used without her permission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6943847.stm

My bet is that she is more "shocked and disgusted" at not getting paid for it than the fact it was used.

If she didn't want it seen, why put it on the net?

I expect her family's "outrage" will subside once she's made a few hundred thousand and we can then expect to see bits of her body all over the tabloids.

And she'll be a "model.
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
A teenage photographer is suing a US porn film company for damages after it used a photo of her aged 14 on the front cover of one of its DVDs.

Lara Jade Coton, now 18, was "shocked and disgusted" that her self-portrait, which she put on the internet, had been used without her permission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6943847.stm

My bet is that she is more "shocked and disgusted" at not getting paid for it than the fact it was used.

If she didn't want it seen, why put it on the net?

I expect her family's "outrage" will subside once she's made a few hundred thousand and we can then expect to see bits of her body all over the tabloids.

And she'll be a "model.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of copyright ? You cant just take any picture off the net and use it for commercial means. Thats illegal, its copyrighted.
 
Enmos said:
Ever heard of copyright ? You cant just take any picture off the net and use it for commercial means. Thats illegal, its copyrighted.
Click to expand...

You're right of course.
Though she can hardly complain that loads of people have seen the picture - she posted it on the internet for goodness sake! Maybe she's just dumb but I happen to agree she's only bothered 'cause she knows she could get some money out of this, it's obviously nothing to do with who's seen it or what it's used for.
Loved this part though;
"She said she had e-mailed TVX and was told that her photo was "to blame" for the DVD's poor sales."
I'm sure that shut the greedy cow up.
 
Billy Chyldyshe said:
A teenage photographer is suing a US porn film company for damages after it used a photo of her aged 14 on the front cover of one of its DVDs.

Lara Jade Coton, now 18, was "shocked and disgusted" that her self-portrait, which she put on the internet, had been used without her permission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6943847.stm

My bet is that she is more "shocked and disgusted" at not getting paid for it than the fact it was used.

If she didn't want it seen, why put it on the net?

I expect her family's "outrage" will subside once she's made a few hundred thousand and we can then expect to see bits of her body all over the tabloids.

And she'll be a "model.
Click to expand...


She won't get anything for she didn't copywright her images or post any diclaimer on her website stating that no one could copy her images.
 
Proving she is the owner doesn't mean that others can't copy her images IF she doesn't say they can. whenever you post anything on the net, without legal stipulations against stealing it, anyone can use your stuff.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Proving she is the owner doesn't mean that others can't copy her images IF she doesn't say they can. whenever you post anything on the net, without legal stipulations against stealing it, anyone can use your stuff.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I simply don't post things I don't want seen.
Only an idiot would post something they didn't want others to see and then bitch when they do. All the company has really done is made it more widely seen. Simplistic view but accurate I think.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Proving she is the owner doesn't mean that others can't copy her images IF she doesn't say they can. whenever you post anything on the net, without legal stipulations against stealing it, anyone can use your stuff.
Click to expand...

No, as i said copyright is automatic. You must be able to produce to original ofcourse.
 
Enmos is right.
You do not have to make any disclaimer at all, not register a copyright with the government (though it can help in cases such as a book, to prove that you wrote it).
Copyright is automatic, and as long as she can prove that it is her picture (which should not be difficult at all) then she will win.

I hope she takes the opportunistic scum for all they have.
 
They are using the picture of a child to sell porn. Seems like that would be illegal. Is it?
I can just imagine if I put my 9 yr old daughter's swimsuit pic on myspace and they used it to sell porn.
 
Anti-Flag said:
Fair enough. I simply don't post things I don't want seen.
Only an idiot would post something they didn't want others to see and then bitch when they do. All the company has really done is made it more widely seen. Simplistic view but accurate I think.
Click to expand...

Did you even look at the picture?
It's far from porn.
_44054683_larajadedvd203.jpg


It is just a photo of herself - one that this company stole and used to sell porn without her permission.

Like Orleander said, if your daughter had a picture of herself in a swimsuit on the internet, would it not bother you if a company put on porn DVD's that they distributed all around the world?
 
Orleander said:
They are using the picture of a child to sell porn. Seems like that would be illegal. Is it?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the picture have to be pornographic for it to be illegal? :confused:

Either way that isn't the reason she's sueing - it's because they didn't ask! She's not merely asking them to remove the image she's trying to get money from it. Like I said, she freely posted it online and millions could have seen it there had they desired, now she gets a sniff of money she's unhappy. They should remove the picture and recall the products, issueing a statement that she didn't give permission. If she's not money grabbing then that'd make her happy right?

How many people would have recognized her anyway?

one_raven said:
Did you even look at the picture?
It's far from porn.
Click to expand...
Yes obviously I saw it, even less reason for concern really, I've seen far more racy pictures from girls that age. It's not even as bad as the obligatory myspace "down the top" shot teen girls have.:rolleyes:

It is just a photo of herself - one that this company stole and used to sell porn without her permission.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It's just a photo of herself that somebody else used. See above about removing it and admitting she gave no permission. People use pictures from others all the time and all that happens when they find it is they ask for it to be removed.
Like Orleander said, if your daughter had a picture of herself in a swimsuit on the internet, would it not bother you if a company put on porn DVD's that they distributed all around the world?
Click to expand...
She's not in a swimsuit! She's sitting in a dress and a hat! It's a completely normal artsy photo! Yes how damaging for her reputation I'm sure.:rolleyes:
Like I said; removal - yes, recalling products - yes, admition it had nothing to do with the girl - yes, but damages? Over THAT photo? That just takes the piss ESPECIALLY when anybody could have already seen that pic at will.
It's a risk you take when posting pictures online, anyone with a computer can see them, any creepy or sick perv with internet access can see your baby in a swimsuit or in the bath or whatever else you post - it's globally available, and made so by the poster, so how can anyone complain it's damaging?
The more I think about it the more I'm not sure if it's about the money, or the publicity.
 
Anti-Flag,

The law is htere to protect people. Just as you might have a problem with someone using your image to sell gay porn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top