teenager sues over porn pic

[Tht1Gy!]

[i am not quite sure what you mean exactly...]

What I meant was: The 'c/e' was a reference to
"Is capitalism from patriachy" or the reverse. Loosely, I mean if you're interested in talking anarchism, feminism, and the root causes of this debacle we call western culture, I'm interested. Let's start a thread. I think there would be agreement and there would be challenge. But not here.
I'm operating from the understanding, or belief that it is bad form to go so far off topic.
If this is not the case someone pls, let me know.
See, someone warned me that I might be headed toward being "flamebait" and, as I know I can be less than skilled at grokking rules for social interactions, it's a case of CYA.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

COPYRIGHT IS AUTOMATIC !!!!

whitewolf
If her stuff isn't registered, she won't get much money. But she will win the case.

You're both right. And saying basically the same thing.

 

[Enmos]

You're both right. And saying basically the same thing.

No. You left out something whitewolf said. He also said: "If you want to copyright something, you have to register it prior to publishing it (even on the internet)."
This is just not true.

 

[Baron Max]

No. You left out something whitewolf said. He also said: "If you want to copyright something, you have to register it prior to publishing it (even on the internet)."
This is just not true.

So where and how do you think a copyright comes from? ...just out of thin air? Or just because someone says, "Hey, that's mine!"

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

So where and how do you think a copyright comes from? ...just out of thin air? Or just because someone says, "Hey, that's mine!"

Baron Max

Follow the links and read. Copyright is a right, just as the right of free speech. You dont have to register for that do you ?

 

[Baron Max]

Follow the links and read. Copyright is a right, just as the right of free speech. You dont have to register for that do you ?

The right of free speech is a law ...it's part of the Constitution and is upheld in numerous courts of law. Copyright laws are much, much different ...and each case requires a court and lawyers and judges to decide.

Okay ....what if two people take exactly the same picture ...who has the copyright to that picture? And why?

Baron Max

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Yes, you will win if you can prove it's yours, but you won't win much.

 

[Enmos]

The right of free speech is a law ...it's part of the Constitution and is upheld in numerous courts of law. Copyright laws are much, much different ...and each case requires a court and lawyers and judges to decide.

Okay ....what if two people take exactly the same picture ...who has the copyright to that picture? And why?

Baron Max

Have you bothered to read what i quoted and follow the links ?

 

[Anti-Flag]

hmmmmm
assuming the information is correct as we must for the debate...
lets start with child pornography....
using the image of an under age person to entice others to purchase the sexual content on the fair assumption of that which is on the cover being IN the CONTENT.
you cant commit a crime to make profit even if those you fool may be undesirables.
(regardless of if someone can accurately pick her age the fact stands just as much as statutory rape or sex with a minor,
no matter if the child/teen is looking 18 but is in fact 15, the crime still stands and imputous remains on the person wishing to exercise the adult act of sex, be that purchase of sexual content or a purchase or trade for sexual actions.

That I understand, and I agree, but surely that is a matter for the state to get involved in as it would be classed as a criminal offence, not a case for a civil law suit. A criminal case I'd understand, a money grabbing lawsuit I see little justification for.

pornography is not illegal in many civilised country's, along with prostitution, the only reason prostitution remains illegal is, so as to subjegate women and maintain the patriarchal power structures for the chauvinistic religous fundermentalist capitalist dictators, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC.

Oh please, to subjegate women? Nobody forces women to do those things. If they all said no then there'd be no prostitutes but they don't. Most of them give it away for free so why not let them sell it? You're right though any feminist rant is an entirely different topic as it's irrelevant to this issue.

THERE IS SOO MUCH INSIDE THIS ISSUE
womens rights to protect their own right to make an income.

Womens rights? Don't give me that crap, it's got nothing to do with her sex anymore than her religion or how many feet she has and if they are webbed.

income protection etc...
childrens rights
human rights
artistic rights

How far do artistic rights stretch? People copy things all the time, original thought is widely considered dead, how much damage does it do? If nothing else she has gained from this with exposure and publicity, she's not exactly much of a victim.

im short for time so i will sum up.

when your business is the business of sex and promotion and sale of sexual images, you should be the one to carry the accountability and responsibility for that material meeting all the laws and social expectations that are defined inside that market (the spirit of the law).

Whoever chose the pic should(and most likely will) be sacked, that's accountability and responsibility within the company. Then they should recall and remove the pic and apologise, issueing a statement that they made a mistake and did not have permission. That is fair enough, but has it damaged her reputation at all? Would you have picked that dvd up before and said "oh I know the person who took this pic?" could you even do that now without re-reading the article for her name?

they have exploited this child no matter which way you choose to look at it and is possibly because the person who stole the image was looking for some way to save money and get SUPER young looking women to entice all those who fantasise about having sex with teenage girls.

Now you're just speculating. As I said, you can't see her face, so therefore she doesn't even look young.

the act was knowingly illegal by the person who carried it out, and in doing so they mock the law with their response to her in her efforts to solve this without litigation.

Either knowingly illegal, ignorant, or maybe just unlucky(who said they knew who the author was?). Agreed. However that doesn't change that the lawsuit isn't about removing the image, it's about her 'compensation rights'.

they deserve being hit with the big legal stick because they fail to abide by common polite request to obey the law which was their first and only chance to go without prosecution.
time to kick some ass, pure and simple.

If it's criminal it's for the state to decide. If she wants the images removed then she can sue for that, but it doesn't make her entitled to 'damages' which is what the article reports she is after, not justice, but damages.

 

[ripleofdeath]

Anti-Flag,

The law is there to protect people. Just as you might have a problem with someone using your image to sell gay porn.

and then telling you when you ask them to remove it that people think your ugly.

 

[Anti-Flag]

For clarity I take it you're of an anarchist, or libertarian bent? That's cool, if so.

I wouldn't use a label to describe myself, they never fit quite right, I'm a lot of things mixed into one.

However, this is a bullshit argument. Because while you may not care, most/many folks in amerika will.

There wasn't an argument, I wanted to know why he felt the need to imply gay porn would be offensive. I couldn't care less what most of America thinks, he directed it at me. The irony is most Americans(and all other people) will do things if they can get away with it or won't be recognised, which is exactly the point I made.

Granted, it's not a given it will have lasting effects on this photographer's career, it is a definite possibility.

How? Nobody even knew it was hers, she could have kept this perfectly quiet, but obviously the better option is the opposite end of the spectrum; a public apology, no need for damages at all really especially as is anything she has gained more wider acclaim and publicity from this.

You planning on doing that photo shoot?

Maybe I already did? Point still stands.

While I would agree that: if she is claiming 'pain and suffering', they owe her nothing on that score. But they should owe her a cut.
Her image, her photo.

Is the wide publicity that it's hers not a cut enough? How many people actually watch that porn DVD(or better yet will admit it?), or actually notice the cover? Don't you think they'd be a tad preoccupied to notice? It also doesn't have her name anywhere on it, it's across the atlantic, there are so many reasons it just wouldn't be connected to her on a frequent level.
I just can't stand her acting like it's about morality and what it's been used for rather than about the money.

Look, they've got someone surfing art sites looking for cheap cover art, and they got caught. Probably figured,"Some punk kid's photo. Good shot." and either, "She'll never know", or "She's a kid. What's she gonna do about it?" Besides, maybe this is her way of cashing in. Here's this teenaged photographer already getting her name out there. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
I don't know how much money the vid company has, it kinda sounded rinkydink, but my reading of the stuff was cursory. I hope she gets some cash...

I don't like the companies, I'd love to see them taken down a peg or two, but not over something like this, it's most likely they'll offer her a settlement to use the picture and she'll take it cause it's the money she wants and she's got something out of this already.

 

[Anti-Flag]

You two are gross.

Because I'm blunt and refuse to be so naive? I'll take your word for it.

If someone is an aspiring photographer, of course she will post her photographs on the internet - for promotion. That's different from posting your pics in myspace albums or some other sites that store your albums. If she promotes her work, it does not mean that she allows everyone to use it freely.

Who said it means it can be used freely? All that's been said is she's a moron for not protecting her content better. Sure she wants a portfolio, but it doesnt' have to be public, she should keep it for her close friends and potential employers and the like.

No, it isn't legal to use just any image off the internet for commercial goals. Permission must be obtained (and it does come with a price tag, as it should).

I agree it's not legal, I dispute what damage it has caused her.

Welcome into adult world.

That's exactly what she got, maybe now she'll be smarter, I'm sorry she had to learn the hard way but being naive is part of life.

 

[Anti-Flag]

This is a part of a quote from one of enmos' posts from earlier:

It's up to you to file a lawsuit in federal court and to convince the judge to order the other party to stop the infringement and compensate you for your losses.

I think this sums up what I'm getting at: What losses?

 

[Anti-Flag]

and then telling you when you ask them to remove it that people think your ugly.

Am I the only one who laughed at that part? If for no other reason than the fact they chose the pic then blame her for it! I can almost feel sorry for her.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

it's most likely they'll offer her a settlement to use the picture and she'll take it cause it's the money she wants and she's got something out of this already.

And her wanting a settlement is a problem because...?

 

[Nasor]

Man, I can't believe people are still this ignorant on copyright law. There is no need to register a copyright - as Enmos has already stated, any time you create an original work and fix it in any sort of media (written, recorded, photo, whatever) you have an instant, automatic copyright to it. There is no need to register a copyright, post a copyright notice, or anything else.

 

[darksidZz]

Unfortunately I side with The Pirate Bay on their current stance, that copyright law in the USA is nothing more than made-up fantasy designed to cause lawyers more trouble and give them greater stupidity!

There is no such thing as a copyright, the only person who holds the rights to something is the one who made it, in this case there was nothing made, a photo isn't actually real! Sadly this girl looks cute for being 14 on the cover, if she were in it perhaps I'd purchase the thing off ebay :C~ Alas we find the female is stupid and relatively blind.

Are you reading this? Well you'd better not be because fonts are copyrighted, as a matter of fact you can't even be reading what I've typed without my consent so I'm going to have to sue you for at least 1 dollar per word you've read so far Sorry...

Oh yea I am going to post a picture of a faucet sink, then if you see it or even think of it I'm going to sue you for that too! What a fun world, weee make up things and sound professional, I have an idea I'm going to say I can copyright someones outfit, the thing they wear?! How about that!!!

"Hi Debra you look dashing today."

"Shut up Sam you pig I hate you."

"Now now Debra I've copyrighted that outfit, if you're not nice I'll have it removed."

"Go screw yourself you gerk, I thought you were crazy but..."

Pulls Debras clothes off violently

"What are you doing freak, I'm telling"

"Now now Debra darling I have the copyright right here, you can't do anything you broke the copyright law to my heart."

As we can see example 1 is akin to what copyright means in todays modern age. It's meaningless. With the advent of digital means to transfer data I predict further attempts to protect rights, be they intellectual or not will ultimately fail. Innovation will come but so shall the loss of what once was believed to be OWNED.

Let me re-iterate again, you stupid fools and weakminded simpletons cannot OWN or COPYRIGHT any of these (in reality not the make believe world you live in):

1. Photos
2. Videos
3. Programs
4. Music
5. Anything

Everything is open to usury, there is no limit. The Pirate Bay and others like them will make you realize this soon enough. We must fight against the USA and it's sickly obsessed culture of rights to things which have none!

PS This has been a rambling by yours truly

 

[Enmos]

Man, I can't believe people are still this ignorant on copyright law. There is no need to register a copyright - as Enmos has already stated, any time you create an original work and fix it in any sort of media (written, recorded, photo, whatever) you have an instant, automatic copyright to it. There is no need to register a copyright, post a copyright notice, or anything else.

Thanks Nasor, im slowly starting to loose my cool here..

Shut up DarksidZz

 

[Nasor]

Yes, you will win if you can prove it's yours, but you won't win much.

Maybe, maybe not. Since this was a porn company ripping off a 14 year-old girl's photo for blatantly commercial purposes, the judge might award large punitive damages.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Maybe, maybe not. Since this was a porn company ripping off a 14 year-old girl's photo for blatantly commercial purposes, the judge might award large punitive damages.

Sounds 'bout most likely.