teenager sues over porn pic

And her wanting a settlement is a problem because...?
I don't see a reason she deserves it. If it hasn't done any damage to her reputation(quite the reverse it seems) then the settlement should consist of costs and withdrawal of the offending items as I've mentioned.
If I tripped over at work through someone elses negligence and was uninjured I wouldn't be entitled to compensation, but I should still force them to sort the problem out.
 
Just thought id post this too:

From http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3 :
With one important exception, you should assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author made diligent attempts to correct the situation.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public. For example, scholars must be free to quote from their research resources in order to comment on the material. To strike a balance between the needs of a public to be well-informed and the rights of copyright owners to profit from their creativity, Congress passed a law authorizing the use of copyrighted materials in certain circumstances deemed to be "fair" -- even if the copyright owner doesn't give permission.

Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider the following questions in deciding this issue:

* Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.)
* How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely it is that the use is fair.)
* How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research, scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a commercial gain are less likely to be fair use).

As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand, if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.

So, they were wrong no matter what.
 
If any production company makes money from another's work, the first owes the second money.

It's a porn DVD! Do you really believe the cover did anything for its sales?
At this point I'll also ask you to look again at the picture, seeing as it's going to come down to a direct comparison to the competition as per enmos' above post; is the picture going to encourage sales compared to a half naked slut that is the usual porn image?
Did you also buy their line about how its sales were poor because of the picture?
 
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 doesn't have to be public, she should keep it for her close friends and potential employers and the like.

That's ridiculous. All legit artists display their works on web sites, that's the industry standard for self-promotion today. And that still does not allow anyone to snatch works without any notification and permission.

You don't think it's damaging to have work stolen like that? Besides the mere fact that she didn't get paid, she also would've thought twice before allowing a photo of herself to be put on a porn dvd because that does spoil reputation and attach a stigma.
 
That's ridiculous. All legit artists display their works on web sites, that's the industry standard for self-promotion today.
If you're not well known you're taking a risk allowing everyone to see it, for example someone could easily draw it themselves. Now you can't prove who drew it first. If someone thinks they can just post their pics everywhere and things will turn out grand they're a fool. You should keep the websites viewers limited or password protect it/force registration etc. There are measures that can be taken and it doesn't affect anything.
And that still does not allow anyone to snatch works without any notification and permission.
Some works are in the public domain, if the copyright isn't apparent it can easily be misinterpreted as such. They should retract it now they know better. Shouldn't be a problem for anyone then.

You don't think it's damaging to have work stolen like that?
Lets look at the evidence, nobody knew who she was - she now has mass publicity, it's known she didn't agree to it so her reputation is clean, she's probably going to get a fair bit of money for what is hardly a masterpiece of photography. No, in these circumstances I don't think it's been damaging for her at all.
 
Hey all, first post.

Just to give my input in this.
Since copyright is automatic, from the moment she shot that picture it was hers and her copyright applied.
Now for the copyright to apply it does not matter at all that it's been used on the cover of a porn DVD. This is just to make the story even more dramatic, but the questions are simple.

* Does the owner of the image have the copyright, can she prove it she made the picture?
* Did the company who used the picture get permission in some way to use it?
* Did the company who used the picture used it for commersial purposes? (does not matter whether the image improved or damaged the sales of the DVD)

In this case that's hard to answer for as the information given in the news articel only reveals assumptions.

'I personaly won't know for sure what her motives are. On one hand you can say she is damaged to the people close to her. After all it was a desend picture, nothing erotic to it posted by a 14 year old. Family may or may not have know she even posted the picture, it's easy to asume they have seen the picture before. Therefor they only have to see a glimbs of the cover of the DVD to have some sort of reqognission.
Next to that, she is now 18. Looking at her website shows she is serious about photography and posibly making a living out of it. For her being the cover of a Porn DVD can be damaging, by making it a case and thereby making it public is only for the good, the more people know she never gave permission for that cover the better.'

Cheers.
 
if a male of 25 years finds a picture of himself at the age of 15 used on the cover of a homosexual pornography movie, does that mean the makers of the pron and promoters are engaging in child pornography ?
 
Welcome to Sciforums Digaph ! :)

if a male of 25 years finds a picture of himself at the age of 15 used on the cover of a homosexual pornography movie, does that mean the makers of the pron and promoters are engaging in child pornography ?

That assumption would be shaky but its besides the point. The question is: was the company wrong to take the picture whithout consent of the photographer ?
The answer is: yes, because the photo is copyrighted to the photographer.

I dont know if or how much the company will have to pay. But it seems likely that they at least have to call back the DVD.
 
Hey all, first post.

Just to give my input in this.
Since copyright is automatic, from the moment she shot that picture it was hers and her copyright applied.
Now for the copyright to apply it does not matter at all that it's been used on the cover of a porn DVD. This is just to make the story even more dramatic, but the questions are simple.

* Does the owner of the image have the copyright, can she prove it she made the picture?
* Did the company who used the picture get permission in some way to use it?
* Did the company who used the picture used it for commersial purposes? (does not matter whether the image improved or damaged the sales of the DVD)

In this case that's hard to answer for as the information given in the news articel only reveals assumptions.

'I personaly won't know for sure what her motives are. On one hand you can say she is damaged to the people close to her. After all it was a desend picture, nothing erotic to it posted by a 14 year old. Family may or may not have know she even posted the picture, it's easy to asume they have seen the picture before. Therefor they only have to see a glimbs of the cover of the DVD to have some sort of reqognission.
Next to that, she is now 18. Looking at her website shows she is serious about photography and posibly making a living out of it. For her being the cover of a Porn DVD can be damaging, by making it a case and thereby making it public is only for the good, the more people know she never gave permission for that cover the better.'

Cheers.
Well, it's a strong start! And nicely put.
 
whats wrong with you people ?
why should it matter if she is making a living from photography or not ?
why should she have less rights if she has less money ?
or less status ?

how ridiculous your comments are about that just beggers belief.
 

why should it matter if she is making a living from photography or not ?
why should she have less rights if she has less money ?
or less status ?

It does not matter for the question whether or not the artwork is copyright protected.
It does however have an influence in my personal point of view of whether or not she has suffered damage from her pictures being wrongly used on the cover of a porn dvd.
I didn't say nor meant to say that she has any more or less rights depending on status or the ammount of money she has. That's just what you made up.

Cheers
 
It does not matter for the question whether or not the artwork is copyright protected.
It does however have an influence in my personal point of view of whether or not she has suffered damage from her pictures being wrongly used on the cover of a porn dvd.
I didn't say nor meant to say that she has any more or less rights depending on status or the ammount of money she has. That's just what you made up.

Cheers

DUDE!
note i did not reply to anyone with that post.
for the very reason i was not and am not going to point fingers.
just a mild glazing observation from some of the comments i have read.
 
The amount of money she has is directly proportional to the amount of legal fees she can pay.

T1G! out.
:)
 
At this point I'll also ask you to look again at the picture,
Thanks for sending me back, truly. I read it more throughly. And, It's a cool shot.

"I was pretty frightened, especially about what people's reactions might be.

"If I didn't put the case in now, in years to come - because I want to be a successful photographer - then what would happen?" Her words.

...half naked slut...
???
Your view of women? Women in the porn industry?

Did you also buy their line about how its sales were poor because of the picture?
No.
 
Thanks for sending me back, truly. I read it more throughly. And, It's a cool shot.

"I was pretty frightened, especially about what people's reactions might be.

"If I didn't put the case in now, in years to come - because I want to be a successful photographer - then what would happen?" Her words.
I wouldn't expect her to say otherwise. Remember whatever she says has to support her case so consider the source of the comments.

Your view of women?
Now we both know that in no way follows on from my full comments, unless now every woman works in the porn industry. :rolleyes:
Women in the porn industry?
I suppose technically I should have said whores, seeing as they get paid for sex it's a crude but accurate description. I'm sure sluts applies too however, how else would you describe them though?

Glad we agree.
 
That assumption would be shaky but its besides the point. The question is:

you are wrong you are wrongyou are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong

here is the question again

if a male of 25 years finds a picture of himself at the age of 15 used on the cover of a homosexual pornography movie, does that mean the makers of the pron and promoters are engaging in child pornography ?

really truly honestly ...
you do not have to answer it,
but please try not to show your self up by trying to invalidate the question then change it into a question that you want to ask me...
thats really low level stuff for someone like myself and i rarely bother to play in that level of conscientiousness


but for you i make one exception one time only
 
if a male of 25 years finds a picture of himself at the age of 15 used on the cover of a homosexual pornography movie, does that mean the makers of the pron and promoters are engaging in child pornography ?

The answer is no.
It depends whether the picture of the 15 year old can be seen as child porn.
Using kids in a porn movie ain't child porn unless you make them interact sexually or show child nudity. In this case if the picture of the 15 year old was child porn by itself the answer would be yes.
Asuming the picture is decend your answer is no, they are not engaging in child pornography.
 
The answer is no.
It depends whether the picture of the 15 year old can be seen as child porn.
Using kids in a porn movie ain't child porn unless you make them interact sexually or show child nudity. In this case if the picture of the 15 year old was child porn by itself the answer would be yes.
Asuming the picture is decend your answer is no, they are not engaging in child pornography.

wow, well that is interesting to know.
for instance i can walk around a kids playground filimg kids on swings and ect...
then cut straight to a sex scene of some 15 year old looking 18 year old boys having a threesome with a 70 year old man ?


i am surprised that there would not be scope for "theme" in the context of it.
 
Back
Top