Personal photos/videos stolen and released from personal computer by ex

[cbg]

Again, I don't see how that affects the basic question.

Sorry I (and my friend) don't agree with the prevailing opinion that if you consent to have a nude photo taken you lose any right to withhold consent to its being shown to the general public. But that's just the way it is.

 

[seniorjudge]

Sorry I (and my friend) don't agree with the prevailing opinion that if you consent to have a nude photo taken you lose any right to withhold consent to its being shown to the general public. But that's just the way it is.

I didn't say anybody lost any rights. In fact, I told them how it would be EASIER to get damages:

Join the model's union before you pose again and then you can sue for damages if there is an unauthorized distribution.

And, to repeat my rather common sense observation: "If you pose for a picture (clothed, unclothed, half clothed) you can expect someone to see it."

 

[cbg]

I didn't say anybody lost any rights. In fact, I told them how it would be EASIER to get damages

Granted, you did. But you (and stephenk) appear to be in the minority.

 

[seniorjudge]

Granted, you did. But you (and stephenk) appear to be in the minority.

I don't know what my ethnic background has to do with it, but I am West Scot, Sephardic Jew, and Errant Lutheran, so I guess that does make me a minority and I definitely think I need a check from someone.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

No, I didn't ask him that. But I don't see what difference it makes.

Well, for one, a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress would require the showing of quantitative, measurable distress.

Now, how you do that without involving a physician, psychologist or other health professional is beyond me. And of course, damages looms it's ugly head. Per se damages are a moot point. She allowed the photos to be taken.

How is he proposing to show damages when the girl allowed the photos to be taken knowing that they existed and may be shown to another person?

And then let's not forget that the burden of proof will be squarely on HER shoulders. That requires weeks, if not months, of prep work, interviewing witnesses and completing discovery over an issue that MIGHT get the defendent an award of $1,000 or so.

And now we come to the kicker. Who, besides the two involved in taking the photos, heard her tell him "I don't want these to be shown to anyone except you and me." and who, besides the two of them, heard him tell her, "I promise that they won't be."

You see dear, unless your attorney friend plans on filing this as pro bono, he will be racking up more expenses, time and effort to take a no-win case before judge and jury.

and it all boils down to he-said, she-said. The loser in most of these cases is the one with the burden of proof.

 

[meganproser]

What about Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of Privacy: Publicity Given to Private Life, which is explained as follows:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

1. would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
2. is not of legitimate concern to the public.

The main determination in a publicity given to private life lawsuit is whether the matter being publicized is public or private. If the matter is one of public concern, there is no invasion of privacy. First Amendment rights protect the publication of items of legitimate public interest. However, if the matter is not one of public concern, and it is one that people would find offensive, there is an invasion of privacy. An example of publicity given to private life would be publicizing the fact that your neighbor has failed to pay his credit card bill for three months.

Public figures (those persons who, by their accomplishments or place in life, give the public a legitimate interest in their affairs, such as politicians, entertainers, or professional athletes) face a somewhat lessened right to privacy because more of their actions are of legitimate public concern than private citizens.

 

[seniorjudge]

What about Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of Privacy: Publicity Given to Private Life, which is explained as follows:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

1. would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
2. is not of legitimate concern to the public.

The main determination in a publicity given to private life lawsuit is whether the matter being publicized is public or private. If the matter is one of public concern, there is no invasion of privacy. First Amendment rights protect the publication of items of legitimate public interest. However, if the matter is not one of public concern, and it is one that people would find offensive, there is an invasion of privacy. An example of publicity given to private life would be publicizing the fact that your neighbor has failed to pay his credit card bill for three months.

Public figures (those persons who, by their accomplishments or place in life, give the public a legitimate interest in their affairs, such as politicians, entertainers, or professional athletes) face a somewhat lessened right to privacy because more of their actions are of legitimate public concern than private citizens.

Thank you for copying and pasting that, Megan, but you really need to read BB's post.

 

[meganproser]

I read BB's post and I even understood it!

If OP were to bring suit, I think her best claim would be for invasion of privacy.

Whether or not the pursuit of a claim is "worthwhile", is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer not to assume anything about the OP’s dedication to her cause.

 

[cbg]

BB, if Mr. CBG, who is in public relations, takes my picture with my permission, fully clothed, to use on a brochure for a client, he has to get my signature on a release. So I find it difficult to believe that he could post my nude picture on the internet without my permission. No comments, please. I'm serious here.

And I don't recall saying that my friend would not have to involve a doctor or psychologist. Quote me correctly, please.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Since this question has come up so often I discussed it with an attorney friend who does not post on this forum (though he does on others).

He said that although this is not his area of law, if anyone came to him with a complaint that a former boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse had posted nude photos of her/him on the internet without permission, then regardless of whether the person posed knowingly for the photos or not, he would not hesitate to file a suit against the person who posted the photoe for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He says he very much doubts that consenting to have the pictures taken is a substitute for a release of those pictures for publication.

My response:

Actually, Meganproser is correct. You see, the OP is writing from California, and in California, "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" IS NOT an independent "cause of action". It is an element of "damages". In other words, our OP would need to file a "cause of action" that is recognized under California law; e.g., Invasion of Privacy. Then, flowing from that as the damages, would be the "Intentional Infliction" AND the "Negligent Infliction" of Emotional Distress. Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 598, 605, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 131, 135-136--complaint improperly labeled emotional distress damages and civil conspiracy liability as separate causes of action]

I think she has a good case because she's a private party. Also, such photos require a Release. Without that signed Release, it's prima facia evidence that he didn't have permission to post the pictures.

IAAL

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB, if Mr. CBG, who is in public relations, takes my picture with my permission, fully clothed, to use on a brochure for a client, he has to get my signature on a release. So I find it difficult to believe that he could post my nude picture on the internet without my permission. No comments, please. I'm serious here.

Completely different scenario. Yours is a commercial application for which there is remedy. The post clearly is a private civil matter.

And I don't recall saying that my friend would not have to involve a doctor or psychologist. Quote me correctly, please.

I never quoted you as saying your friend would NOT involve those parties. Please quote me correctly dear.

 

[cbg]

Well, regardless of whether I used the appropriate terms for the state in question, IAAL and Megan have proved my point. As for the rest, BB, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[casa]

Well, regardless of whether I used the appropriate terms for the state in question, IAAL and Megan have proved my point. As for the rest, BB, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm curious why you didn't answer stephenk's question re; others in the pictures. An X boyfriend would seem to have a case against this person- since he didn't allow this person to take his picture OR distribute it. (The X boyfriend allowed 'you' to take the picture- and you didn't distribute it.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I am in CA and had a similar situation happen to a friend of mine. X working on their computer (Lesson Learned! ) and took pictures off the hard-drive of them & their current partner. They won a civil case. Not much money, but more than attorney fees, and most importantly the X was punished in court which was validation enough.