|
yea I read it I will put her story on a couple of my blogs.. how sad.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That is rather bad, though methinks the fact that she was 14 at the time of the photo might just get the authorities involved, especially considering the amount of laws intended to try to prevent child porn.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't disagree but I would not have guessed the young lady was 14 and maybe there lies a part of the issue????
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
 That's a pretty contentious perspective that I won't respond to directly for fear of detracting from the main thread.
The image was used directly as a cover for a pornographic film that has been sold in many places (mostly porn sites) over the net and elsewhere. Whatsmore, the main character of the pornographic film is portrayed as a photographer with the same first name as the person who's image was stolen. Watermarks and copyright information have been removed prior to using it to advertise the pornographic material within.
It has to be the responsibility of people making and marketing pornography to be absolutely sure that they are not using material portraying children and teenagers. In this instance the theft has been blatant and long-standing. When approached politely, the protagonists have been at best been patronising and arrogant. Suggesting that by placing her image on a public site she was as good as inviting it to be used. They also inferred that she had done so deliberately in order to be a trouble maker and sue companies like them - that she was just after the money. Surely the implications of such an attitude cannot be overlooked on photo-sharing site? They are relying on her relative youth, the fact she resides in another country and her lack of funding to get away with that theft. They are not just thieves, they are bullies. This is IMHO reprehensible.
The person concerned (who is now 17 years old) should not have to justify her anger about the theft of her copyrighted work, nor her absolutely understandable concerns about being misunderstood and misidentified
herself, because other people were unable to guess her age accurately when she 14 years old. Nor should she be expected to accept the theft as legitimate in light of that.
(Edited to tidy up the grammar and clarify some stuff...)
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
What he said....
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know when I see people posting their kids pics online, I write them an e-mail stating that kiddie porn people might steal their photos, and to post photos with no people in them. That's what I do, unless they're sillouetted.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Phoenix51_Gone Off To Be Resurrected [deleted] says:
I know when I see people posting their kids pics online, I write them
Perhaps its time for flickr to start posting statutory warnings for the dumbos who think flickr is a family album.
Such folks need to be apprised of the concept of private pools.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Phoenix51_Gone Off To Be Resurrected edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
Perhaps its time for flickr to post statutory warnings for the dumbos who think flickr is a family album.
Perhaps you need to read the About Flickr page.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Phoenix51_Gone Off To Be Resurrected [deleted] says:
@FlyButtafly: You need to read the previous comments again. Though flickr does caution and advise, the tribe of the dumbos is impervious to common sense. Heck, otherwise they'd be non-dumbos. There have been posts in threads, there have been clear cut warnings. But the dim clots of the world keep pushing pictures of their innocent familiy members for misuse by all the sickos on the net.
So, perhaps the warnings need to be posted in greater numbers and in larger font sizes.
Perhaps you need to read the About Flickr page. indeed!
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Phoenix51_Gone Off To Be Resurrected edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
Maybe they can extend that to the groups that are named "cute young girls" or "boy scout boys", too. People who post their kid pics to groups like that, well. maybe they get what they deserve?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh absolutely - in fact why not ban images of children that are used anywhere on the net. Lets have exclusion clauses in photo-sharing sites banning them from being uploaded, with rogue images deleted and persistent offenders being banned. In fact, why don't we ban any parent from taking pictures of their children in a public place, and absolutely no way should they be allowed to show those pictures to anyone. While we are at it, lets makes sure parents who do such a terrible thing are reported to social services....and their children taken from them and reallocated to some good upstanding members of society who are better equipped to do the job. For that matter - any rogue photographers out there who might be inclined to take a spontaneous picture of kids - lets confiscate their camera's, arrest and detain them too. (In case you weren't sure - application of vast quantities of irony being used here...)
I mean *really*.
The girl had her image stolen.
The person who stole it doesn't have a problem with that.
Saying 'I told you so' just gives credence to the thieves.
This wasn't a case of someone 'out there' using the image to prop up their own personal fantasy, it was used and distributed commercially. That sounds very much like: 'if your photographic image is stolen off a photo-sharing web-site then 'sue em' (those 'outraged from flickr' folk who supported Rebekka) but if it was stolen for pornographic purposes 'you had it coming' for posting it in the first place..
That stinks!
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm so disturbed by Tina Henderson's response - that maybe part of the issue is that she looks older than 14 in the photo.... I'm really struggling with what that means. Because to me the central issue is that a company has stolen a photo to use on a porn dvd - and the fact it was of someone under the legal age of consent is what makes it worse.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
well, no, trapac, you're right. stolen is stolen. The difference is, something for commercial gain, or against a copyright, you kind of have some avenues of addressing it. Child porn rings? By definition they aren't too concerned about the law.
So it isn't that they [parents, pro photogs, etc] "had it coming" in the sense that there's nothing they can do.They're in the very same boat as anyone who gets an image stolen and has to deal with the theft and recovery, etc.
Difference is. These are pics of THEIR CHILDREN. They're not taken for profit, they're taken for someone to get off on them. So once that's discovered, it's kind of already too late, isn't it? If you don't want to deal with your kids' photos being used in pedo porn rings or otherwise oggled, then they shouldn't be posted on the internet.
it's the exact same risk as anyone's images online. Difference is, are you OK with the risk of your kids pics being taken for THIS?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How can 'the fact that it was of someone under legal age' make it 'worse' ? That's muddle headed thinking - it would only 'make it worse' if the photo had a caption on it certifying that the model was underage ( and not 'posing' as someone underage ). The only issue for me of any great import is that the picture was available for stealing and was, therefore, stolen ( and no, I'm not saying ' I told you so ' and would still hope, however unrealistic it is, that the law would protect the victim ). The fact that the 'model' is /was underage is in many ways a red herring, however it's a good one for garnering public sympathy and 'outrage'. I find the reaction of the publishers quite unbelievable - and they are very lucky that they are dealing with, presumably, a nice -middle-class sort-of -person, and not someone who would be likely to react with a 'friendly' visit to the company's HQ accompanied by a can of petrol or a baseball bat. I would not advocate that approach, but sometimes, for all my liberal leanings, I can almost understand how helpless people feel when the law just isn't there unless you have power, money or influence to buy a chunk of it.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The risk exists for every person and/or parent posting images on the internet. That is a decision for them to take.
Whatever the decision taken, just because the image isn't stolen, (or you don't know/find out about it) doesn't mean that it may not be used as part of a random person's own fantasy fest. Most people will never know about it and would rather not think about it. If they do think about it and it's too much, then they probably shouldn't upload images of their children at all or keep them private. If they recognise that can happen and are able to keep it into some perspective, then they may be better able to deal with the implications of a public upload. Whichever decision that is taken, those individuals have a right to make a decision and act accordingly and should not be vilified for that.
In this case, a 17 year old photography student has just discovered that one of her images taken as a 14 year old, is being used to advertise a porn movie.
Her image was stolen.
There has been a copyright breach.
She was (and remains) underage and therefore there has also been a breach in the law pertaining to the use of children in pornography.
The fact that she may or may not look 14.
The fact that she uploaded it at all.
The fact that her parents may or may not have sanctioned that upload.
These things are irrelevant.
Her image was stolen, and used for profit without her permission.
The fact it was used to market pornographic materials and she was under-age, just adds an extra level of complexity to her case.
The debate about whether parents should/should not upload images of their children on a public site is another debate entirely.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can't remember, but when you upload your very first images to Flickr, are they 'private' by default ? If not, then maybe this is the answer. After all, if all images are private unless 'unlocked' ( which would then entail perhaps ticking a box which states quite clearly your acknowledgement of the risks associated with publishing on the internet ) then maybe some people would think twice before making some images public ( whether of people or sunsets ) that they would rather not have stolen.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No - I think you have to actively make them private on upload. The default setting is 'public - anyone can see them'.
I tend to make mine private to add the title, tags & descriptions before making them publicly visible. I'd never thought of it as a 'cool off window' to check you are happy to upload...
Tricky isn't it - making people aware of the realities without spreading fear and paranoia about the place. Delicate balance..
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
'm so disturbed by Tina Henderson's response - that maybe part of the issue is that she looks older than 14 in the photo.... I'm really struggling with what that means.
The point I am making Knautia is that we are confusing two issues here: we now understand the image to be child pornography because we are informed the person was 14. Would you have known that if not told?
The image is not itself pornographic and we are informed that the video content is adult pornography. But I'm failing to understand where child pornography comes into this.
If that had not been vaunted, what would the discussion point be? It would be that an image has been stolen, which we all accept is a risk if we post on the internet, and used in a manner not acceptable to the person posting it.
I am not condoning the use of child pornography at all; it is vile on all levels.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The answer Tina Henderson is that the fact of the person being underage is an additional weapon to beat the living shit out of scum (metaphorically speaking). There is no philosophical question.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The age of the girl in the photo doesn't matter. Sure, the contents of the video are pornographic, but the image on the cover is not. Thus, the fact that she was 14 on that photo is of no relation to any of this.
It is, however, a blatant breach of copyright as the author of the photo did not give any (specific or blanket) permission for the image to be used. That is basically the only thing that matters here.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a slight change of topic -- sorry -- but I am very tired of the people who scream about photos of kids being "used as kiddie porn" and who therefore argue that we should not post -- or even take -- innocent, wholesome photos of children, fully clothed, in completely non-sexual situations, for fear that such photos might be viewed by pedophiles with prurient interests. If a pedophile can derive prurient pleasure from a wholesome, innocent, non-sexual photograph of a child, that pedophile has an obvious problem, but his or her problem is not the fault or responsibility of the person who took or posted the photograph. More importantly, the fact that a pedophile can somehow derive warped sexual pleasure from an innocent, non-sexual photo of a child does no damage whatsoever to the child in the photo, which is the real matter of concern. When a parent, or even an unrelated photographer, takes a completely wholesome, clothed, non-sexual photo of a child, the person taking the photograph has done nothing wrong, and has not harmed the child in any way, and nothing some twisted pedophile might later do in his darkened room can change either of those facts. Children brighten the world, and it would be an awful shame if we allowed the mere existence of a few mentally warped pedophiles to discourage us from photographing and celebrating the wonders of childhood.
(Again, this was a slight change of subject from the original posting; what that pornography company did with your photo, Lara, was despicable, and I hope you find a way to hold them accountable.)
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Oh absolutely - in fact why not ban images of children that are used anywhere on the net. Lets have exclusion clauses in photo-sharing sites banning them from being uploaded, with rogue images deleted and persistent offenders being banned.
This is a sensitive issue and it seems the best way to go about it would be to ensure the warnings and cautions are made more prominent, perhaps on homepages of individual photostreams. Till such time technology produces a surfing experience where one can have the option of 'view only' pictures, all new comers to flickr should at least be armed with the knowledge that things can go wrong.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
personne.de.chandigarh edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
The age of the girl in the photo doesn't matter. Sure, the contents of the video are pornographic, but the image on the cover is not. Thus, the fact that she was 14 on that photo is of no relation to any of this.
Except it is being used to represent/advertise the contents of the video. It doesn't matter if the photo itself is unrelated to the video, it is associated with pornography by its use on the cover. If someone were to take a photo of a child specifically for use on the cover of a pornographic video, even if the photo itself is not pornographic, I believe it would still be considered sexual exploitation. The only difference here is that they stole the photo which already existed, rather than having the child pose for them.
Especially considering that the back cover had text which stated something to the effect that no one affiliated with the video was under 18. Technically true, except that Lara became (or appeared to be) affiliated by their use of her photo.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The age of the girl in the photo doesn't matter. Sure, the contents of the video are pornographic, but the image on the cover is not. Thus, the fact that she was 14 on that photo is of no relation to any of this.
Using an image of a minor (clothed or not) to promote an adult product is still illegal. Period.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In my state, it is now illegal to photograph a minor that you are not related to without the written permission of a parent. Taking candid photographs of children in public will now have you hauled off to jail and your photographic equipment confiscated. The law was enacted a couple of years ago to keep perverts from photographing children and manipulating the images in Photoshop and other photosoftware to create virtual child pornography, which, several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled cannot be outlawed, since a real child is not being abused. Several other states have similar laws now.
The question is about parents who post photos of their children online for the general public to view. The legislator who sponsored the law said that should also be outlawed, saying the need to protect children (and their images) from pedophiles overrules the rights of parents to to display photos of their children. I also think about teenagers, who are legal minors, who post photos of themselves and their friends on other photosharing sites and social sites like MySpace. I have seen such photos, and in the case of bikini-clad teen girls, seen comments left by males whose contents violate this site's terms of service. How many of those images have been stolen and manipulated by those with perverted motives?
One last thing is professional child models in clothing ads and catalogs. For years children have modeled every kind of clothing right to underwear and skimpy swimwear. I admit that when I was a young teenager, I got an adolescent thrill looking at the girls modeling underwear in the teen bra pages of the Sears catalogs. I have long outgrown this, But I sometimes worry about such kids whose images of them in that kind of attire have appeared in public.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
StevenM_61 edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
SICKOS! makes me mad :(
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The question is about parents who post photos of their children online for the general public to view. The legislator who sponsored the law said that should also be outlawed, saying the need to protect children (and their images) from pedophiles overrules the rights of parents to to display photos of their children.
I have to say, I think that is utterly ridiculous, not to mention totally scary. Talk about a nanny state. Every time we turn around, the gov't is eroding the rights of parents in the name of "protecting" the children. What next - Outlaw swimsuits outside of our own backyards? Pedophiles enjoy looking at fully-clothed kids too. Maybe we should all wear burqas to protect ourselves and our children.
I don't agree with publishing photos of children/teenagers in their underwear, whether it's in a magazine or on a website. But to outlaw parents posting photos of their children, because that will somehow "protect" them - it's just another example of government idiocy. The real answer is education, not criminalizing innocent actions while the real problem is pushed aside.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In my state, it is now illegal to photograph a minor that you are not related to without the written permission of a parent.
And you live in Texas?
I grew up in Texas and I have lots of photos of me and my friends. Are you saying that it is against the law, say, for a mother to take photos of her kid's birthday party? Or at her kid's soccer game?
Boy, am I glad I don't live in Texas anymore, if that's the case. Particularly seeing how I took about 100 photos at my daughter's soccer game on Saturday.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled cannot be outlawed, since a real child is not being abused.
But the Hon'ble Supreme Court would surely not object if flickr members exercised appropriate caution while uploading their personal family pictures, duly armed with the fore-knowledge of the potential pitfalls. It is a question of personal sensitivity which could vary from place to place.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
personne.de.chandigarh edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
Aren't they supposed to have model releases for the use of the image regardless of age?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Boy, am I glad I don't live in Texas anymore, if that's the case.
I don't think thart is the case at all. He might be confused about the Texas laws on upskirt and downblouse photography, which doesn't include a defense of no expectation of privacy. So if someone is doing that sort of photography anywhere in texas they'll get hammered.
There was a case a while ago where someone got arrested for photographs of kids and women on the beach, but the DA on viewing the photos threw it out.
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F7Xy
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DqDS
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
StevenM_61:
I believe you are incorrect about Texas outlawing photographs of children taken without parental consent. The statute to which you are referring is probably § 21.15 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits photographs taken "with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
Photographs of children, with or without parental consent, are perfectly legal unless taken with intent to arouse or gratify sexual intent.
(If there is another statute to which you were referring, which I did not find in my l legal research, please point out the reference so I can take a look at it.)
Let me also say, as respectfully as I can, that I was also somewhat disturbed by your apparent endorsement of the law as you thought it existed, and the implication in your posting that such a law, if it had existed, would have been an appropriate protection of children. I would have expected, to the contrary, a robust defense of artistic freedom, both from you as an American (since freedom of speech and expression are such core American values) and also from you as a photographer, since so many of your own images themselves depict scantily-clad girls, including many under the age of 18, jiggling and dancing in bikinis and bra-like costumes. Your own photos were taken in public, presumably without the consent of the dozens of girls photographed, and I could easily imagine a conservative God-fearing Texas policeman wondering if they might have been taken out of a desire to gratify a sexual interest. So let this be a reminder to all of us as photographers of the importance of protecting artistic freedom against any encroachment.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
A couple of years ago, I was at a festival watching and photographing a dance school performance when I was approached by a couple of police officers. They questioned me for a few minutes and told me I needed written permission from parents to photograph underage children that I was not related to. They told me to surrender my film or face arrest for taking "improper" photographs, since I told them I was unaware of such a law. I admit I was at that recital alone, which apparently made a parent suspicious of me and called the police. The girls at the performance were NOT scantily clad, they wore outfits that covered them from their shoulders to their thighs.
I soon read in a local newspaper about a man who was arrested for photographing cheerleaders at a local high school football game. I believe that case was thrown out, but a spokesman for the DA said that in similar cases, photographers should get written consent from a parent before photographing kids to avoid any kind of trouble. I have not taken photos of kids performing in public since then unless I am asked by a parent and I ask that they write a note saying they have given their okay to photograph their child to avoid any kind of trouble.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It seems to me they'd be better off spending their budget on tracking down and breaking those child porn rings which actually force / coerce / groom / abduct / whatever children into abuse and sexual acts, rather than the easy targets of an amateur photographer at a f**king festival taking quite obviously non-pornogrpahic shots.
But maybe that's just me. Maybe our society really has become so media controlled that parents actually feel safer knowing that no-one can photograph their kids without getting arrested even though Uncle Joe is left alone in the backyard pool with them every month or so. I mean, he's a bit weird, but he's family, right?
I think this is possibly the most depressing thread I've ever read.
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
-RobW- edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
Steven - did you ever actually look it up for yourself? It seems to me they may have been overstepping their bounds.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If Lara Jade (the original story) had taken this photo of herself in Texas, she could have been arrested.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If Lara Jade ( the original story ) had asked me ( if I was her father, boyfriend, or just a trusted friend ) whether or not she should have put this shot on the internet in the first place, then maybe this whole thread would not exist. And I still have sympathy. But there again, as it is happening in Flickr Central and not the real world, I doubt that anyone who really needs to get a message will ever read it.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This theft of intellectual property (whatever else, it is a fairly good photograph) is rampant because putting your work and family members on FLICKR is the equivalent of leaving your most precious items out on the lawn all year round. It isn't right for people to steal them but that's what's gonna happen.
Ultimately, we have to find better ways to partition off our work and make sure it reaches only the audience we are aiming at. How we do that I don't know.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:
her age, the model release requirements, whether or not Texas is certifiable......these I know not about.
but it seems clear that her image was used commercially without her permission. so what international laws apply? is she entitled to something other than usage fees? is there an international equivalent to registering ones photos with the US Copyright office? which country/court has jurisdiction? does the Berne convention apply at all here?
what seems to suck the most is that there is probably only a usage fee, and not any statutory damages nor legal fees available to her.....thus the impossibility of mounting of what would seem to be an open and shut case. international law really does lag reality, apparently. completely leaving aside the prospect of actually collecting from said scumbags, regardless of judgment......
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
looks like most outlets are removing it from their catalogs.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
7simon... lest there be any doubt, yes, Texas is certifiable. :-)
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What is not yet clear (and we may not be party to knowing the true answer regarding this), is who stole the image in the first place. There is an assumption that a company that provides material to market pornography has 'directly' 'stolen' the image. However it is entirely possible that another third party company or stock photo agency originally stole her image and sold it on.
If that is the case, then the third party making money out of stealing and then selling her image is actually the matter for concern here. If a pornography marketing company did not check for details of her age or a model release; but the stock photo agency selling the image to them implies that it has those things, then surely it is the stock agency that is at fault.
When buying an image, whose responsibility is it to check these things? The person buying or selling the image? I understood that it should be the person selling the image, which is why it is important for the photographer to gain consent and clarify model release before anyone purchases it. If that is not clarified, particularly if the image is stolen when that information will not be available - then inappropriate usage is the one thing that might draw un-necessary attention to it and subsequently reveal the theft. This is what has happened in this instance.
IF a 'third party'/stock agency was involved, then the company using the image to market pornography may well feel aggrieved regarding the accusations they face, and their tarnished reputation - especially if they actually do take their responsibilities regarding the use of under-age models seriously. I realise that there will be those who consider the mere mention of the word 'responsible' and 'pornography' in the same sentence as an oxymoron... They would also have to review their procedures to have a watertight screening process for the use of such images, ensuring where the age of the model is ambiguous, that documentation exists to clarify that..
Regardless of people's individual responses/feelings towards pornography - the issue becomes much less clear cut as far as the culpability of the pornography marketing company is concerned.
We shouldn't assume that the person 'stealing' the image is the person who will ultimately *directly* use and abuse it. Having no links with the photographer and low enough scruples to steal the image and sell it in the first place, suggests you aren't going to give a damn if the person to whom you sell it, represents a pornography marketing company, or any other company considered ireputable for that matter.
It may be that the issue of being under-age or pornographic promotion is a (albeit *very* emotive) red herring here - which takes us right back to the key issue - that of theft and subsequent use/misuse of your image when it is posted on the internet.. Whether that be Rebekka's landscapes, a fully clothed self portrait of a 14 year old or your cute kittycat.
(Edited to wrestle with the html!)
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
@Trapac
Soz guv, didn't know it was nicked, I got it orf some geezer down t pub.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yup I know how that works with dodgy video's and TV's - 'Ignorance is no defence, you're going dahn guv'nor!' ;)
However - I genuinely don't know if that works in the same way with photographic images used by stock agencies and then sold on again. (Specifically the responsibility for establishing model release and age details..)
Are you saying that both selling agent AND purchaser MUST (by law) make sure they know that information? Not just morally/ethically mind you - but legally?
...oh and internationally not just in the UK/USA...?
('Tis a genuine question...)
Originally posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:
my kittycats are not so cute, receiving stolen property isn't either.....there's plenty of blame to go round......I'm just really not clear about who has jurisdiction, what course of action might be warranted, and the financial feasibility of pursuing any action. Cease and desist, assembling an online mob, and various legal threats are one thing.....but actually seeing it through, with dubious thoughts about a successful outcome seems futile....and that will be the largest tragedy.....that no other case such as this has a snowball's chance. therefore relieving the burden from anyone who might choose to 'borrow' an image in the future......their risk seems actually rather low, and consequence almost nil.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You would have to check as to whether the age limit is an absolute/technical offence or not. IOW whether the relevant law say "Knowingly" or not, and whether there is any defence equivalent to "I didn't know because I didn't check."
My gut feeling would be that anyone producing this material would be wise to have all the documentation in place.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
you need to be 18 to be on DA anyway , ( where the pic got taken from ) so she violated the TOS so i dont think she will get a penny
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i will add that i feel sorry for her and taking peoples work without there consent should not be done !
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
you need to be 18 to be on DA anyway , ( where the pic got taken from ) so she violated the TOS so i dont think she will get a penny
How do you work that out? She could have been 18 and the photo taken 4 years previously, the thieves had no way of knowing that. Besides there are a huge number of kids on DA that are under 18, the age limit is buried deep in the TOS, I just created an acount and specified a DOB of 1994 which was accepted, the DA TOS have nothing to do with some 3rd party.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Walwyn - Where does it say you need to be 18 to join DeviantART. Are you mistaking the age to join with the age to be able to hold a print account? Where you do have to be 18.
Yes, I have a print account but I had it bought for me and in fact, Da contacted me and we sorted it out - all funds go into my parent's bank before they decided to give it to me. Sorted.
I'm actually seventeen now, two months off turning 18.
And i am actually suprised at some of you - it doesn't matter whether the picture DOESNT look like a 14 year old. they SHOULDNT have took the photo. I've had a lot of managers from adult companies contact me and they all state he's breaking one of the laws they agree to in their terms by not obtaining a model release. TVX claim they 'found' it on an adult webshare site.. If so, even then TVX SHOULD have researched into it.
I personally don't like how the case was handled with me and the president of TVX, he was extremely rude to be and couldn't even give me a letter to state he would no longer use the photograph on the DVD (advice given to me by a local solicitor here in the UK). Which goes to show he had absolutely no intention of removing the image. He claims to have removed it but do I have any proof of that? No.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am putting this forward to the media to raise awareness on copyright issues.
Copyright DOES exist but where the hell does it come in to protect you if you don't have money to fight a case? I think the copyright law needs some serious discussion.
It's not only this once i've had my work took and let me tell you, I've been on the internet for a good four years now and I've watched thousands of people fall victim to companies that steal images and make profit and it's disgusting.
..and to those that feel you shouldn't post your work on the internet, that's crap. You should be able to post your work on the net without fear of your work being stolen. I have had a lot of benefits from my work being here (features, commissions) and it's the only way I can showcase my work, otherwise it would be unknown. Plus I enjoy the community site to it too.
It's basically the same as a porno company stealing a photo from say.... Marks & Spencers Website of a girl in a school uniform and sticking it on front of a hard porno. It's NOT right.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
eek, sorry Walwyn, I was reffering to craigdanielosbourne when I was asking about the 18 thing. Let's hope he reads it.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This may seem like an outside chance but have you thought of contacting The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in the US.
Explain to them what has happened & see if they have any advice for you.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
eek, sorry Walwyn, I was reffering to craigdanielosbourne when I was asking about the 18 thing
I realised that. Actually it appears that from their TOS to register as a member of DA you need to be 18+
If you choose to register as a member of our Service or purchase products from the deviantART Shop, you will be asked to check a box indicating that you have read, and agree to be bound by, the additional terms set forth in Section II of these Terms ("Additional Terms").
That would be section 13:
about.deviantart.com/policy/service/
However, it appears that DA don't enforce that themselves. Because as I said I was able to create an account with a stated age of 14.
In any case whether an under 18 can be a member of DA or not has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the issue at all. It is a completely bogus argument.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
TVX claim they 'found' it on an adult webshare site.. If so, even then TVX SHOULD have researched into it.
So presumably TVX are OK with people downloading their content off P2P sites, and other share sites.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And now everybody who comments on this are helping in making it an Internet legend and even more sought after film by certain per^H^H^H"connoisseurs".
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Your story it's the reason, that I never put picture of persons, especially from girls, to this website without an access protection.
You have no control which people downloaded your picture and use it for things that you never want.
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Beeby beeb beeb beebitty beeb.
That's a BBC story on this for the unitiated.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Totalvoyew [deleted] says:
This story is the reason, I keep all of the photos of my wife private.
To many opportunists out there.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i got beaten to it by rob!
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
nuttallp edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
Lara Jade currently has a lawsuit against the slimeballs. I wonder if fellow Flickrites can set up a fund and contribute to it to take care of Lara's legal expenses so she can pursue the suit.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm sure it's being handled on a contingency basis.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good luck, Lara. I hope you win your case.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:
smoking gun had this recently, where's it stand?
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
She better win this case.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
She did.
To the tune of £82,000.00 !
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Miss Coton went on to sue the firm, TVX Films of Texas, after she complained and received an email blaming her for disappointing sales of the DVD, her lawyer Richard Harrison said."
That made me laugh. How can people be so sleezy and then somehow come off worse in their response?
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
BlueTsunami edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
ha! The problem is really... who the heck makes porn outside of San Fernando Valley in LA? It is bad enough there, the Texas company never had a chance, so they needed a scapegoat.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hooray!!! And I'm glad it's "her fault" sales of this video bombed. Sort of like it's her fault when it's a torrential downpour in Krakow, Poland.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for the update, Stevekin. Finally, a happy ending.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was amused to note that the first responder under her pic is one of Flickr's best-known nude selfie posters
Hypocracy? As if....
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
GranDadWoof edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
|
The Defendant seems like quite a 'character':
www.plagiarismtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/burge-...
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How so? She is a professional photographer who has an interest in commercial enterprises who think if they can see it, they can use it for whatever they like.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
your response doesn't make sense? Are you saying that she can somehow control who comments on her pictures? Last time I checked your only options are no comments, or block the user? How does someone else commenting on her work make her a hypocrit?
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think may have meant that if he were a young woman whose Flickr reputation had been built on nude, and occasionally lurid selfies, that he might have abstained from commenting on the controversy surrounding the use of a suggestive selfie done by a 14 yr old girl and its subsequent abuse,... even if such a comment might direct more traffic to one's selfie-laden stream. My interpretation, FWIW.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
couldn't have put it better myself, Don
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is she still underage?
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Lara Jade was a 14-year-old minor who was still too young to work professionally when she took the self-portrait. That photo was stolen and used on that porn video when Lara was still a minor and not old enough to work professionally. She filed the lawsuit when she reached legal age, and I guess she turned professional since originally filing the lawsuit. This was something that threatened to adversely affect a young woman who was not yet of age and threatened the plans she had for her life.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But he wasn't referring to her, he was referring to Miss Aniela.
(I quite like her work and I was just defending her... though she doesn't need me to)
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
Muzzlehatch edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
|
Muzzlehatch wrote he was referring to Miss Aniela. When did she transition to nudes? Why isn't there a posting to this useful bit of information?
Oh, was she doing this 41 months ago? I though back then it was all non-nudie, and just enough to work-up the mind of some most men.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You have to actually be looking for it. It's there. Not that I would know.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I love seances... that must be how you know.
I never thought of it for flickr.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... This issue also exposes how Flickr has never addressed the theft of photos adequately ... And if any issue will kill Flickr, and websites like it, this is the one issue that will do it. Until theft is adequately addressed, Flickr remains vulnerable, as do all photo sites, and things will only get worse.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, how are Flickr supposed to address it, apart from shutting themselves down? If an image is visible on the internet, it's stealable - there's absolutely nothing that can be done about this.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree that Flickr (or any other photo-sharing site) can do nothing to prevent the theft, however one suggestion may be that they could use some of Yahoo's profits and their in house legal experts to help advise people like the young lady in question, and if necessary to help persue the issue legally if appropriate and it can be proved that the image was stolen from Flickr.
Perhaps a few high-profile, well publicised cases may act as more of a deterrant than a few individual members sending half-hearted invoices, or non-professionally worded letters.
Just an idea (prepares asbestos suit)
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
Infinite Monkey edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
|
I think it's the flickr community's fault for posting interesting pictures. We should be posting more crap.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"I think it's the flickr community's fault for posting interesting pictures. We should be posting more crap. "
I'm Trying!!!!!
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Muzzlehatch wrote I think it's the flickr community's fault for posting interesting pictures. We should be posting more crap. Crap is an easy way, but maybe less popular types of photos. Since crap implies less popular, but less popular does not imply crap. In other words, we should go "indie" like in the music scene.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
maybe if we all went Goatse stylee?
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
still a niche for that im sure... Kittens is teh ways forward
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
- the slight flaw is that Yahoo hasn't made a profit since 1989. That's why Flickr has a total staff of 3.5, including the goldfish.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ben Cooper wrote the slight flaw is that Yahoo hasn't made a profit since 1989. was that while in the dorm rooms at Stanford? That "profit" must have been measured in beers.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
may have meant that if he were a young woman whose Flickr reputation had been built on nude, and occasionally lurid selfies, that he might have abstained from commenting on the controversy surrounding the use of a suggestive selfie done by a 14 yr old girl and its subsequent abuse,... even if such a comment might direct more traffic to one's selfie-laden stream. My interpretation, FWIW.
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
