Pictures of GF

[BelizeBreeze]

This is the girlfriend...

...and this is how it is:

I was asleep when (my boyfriend at the time) took the picture, and woke to the flash of his camera. So he didn't have my permission to take it for one thing. Since it was a digital camera I figured the pic(s) would have to get deleted anyway, so I didn't think much of it at the time. It's been two years, apparently he showed them to two of his friends without my permission, and now he has "files too big to put onto discs" so he can't put them on a disc for me as proof for evidence - or so he says. I keep telling him he doesn't need naked pictures of me, yet he considers them information or "data", and that he NEEDS the picture(s) as "options". Really it's him being manipulative and wanting to keep SOMEthing of mine, and I don't want anyone to see them. I have saved conversations with him, me asking politely for him to delete them, and with him goofing around, joking, or refusing. After a while he (THREE TIMES) gave in and said he'd delete them, once saying only if he gets to keep one pic. He's yet to do anything, except try to get away with it. I haven't spoken to a lawyer yet because I can't find a hotline number for Free Legal Advice (thus the posts here). My boyfriend found this site in hopes to help me find someone professional to help me. Instead we got posts from people being cheeky and rude. This isn't an issue of me being fat, or a slut. It's me wanting my privacy back from someone who harasses me, my friends, and my boyfriend. It's almost obsessive, and I'm sure none of you would want to be in this situation.

If you'd like to correct me, let me know where I stand, or be helpful at all - at least be NICE about it, and stop judging. This is a place for people to look for help, not criticism.

Thank you for reading this, though. If you can help at all, thanks!

-Also, why are people asking for pictures? If I'm posting because I want someone to delete naked pictures of me, why would I post any?

And the unfortunate thing about all of this is the simple fact that he'll say you asked him to take the picture and you'll say you didn't and because you did not immediately object, who do you think a judge will believe.

And that is what I told your idiot boyfriend (current). Forget it and move on. You have no case unless you want to waste a lot of time, money and emotion over an issue that you are also partly to blame for.

Edit added: As for your privacy issue, that ended when you did not immediately object. And since you were at his house, you have no expectation of privacy in the matter.

Remember one thing the next time you sleep with someone. You are giving up much more control than just your body.

 

[badapple40]

I've changed my mind. If the pictures were taken without consent, there's a tort there!

Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Ore. 482:

The case presents to this court for the first time the question whether there is such a thing in this state as a legal right of privacy, for breach of which an action for damages will lie. This right, first brought forcefully to the attention of the profession in the year 1890 by an article in the Harvard Law Review by Louis D. Brandeis (later Mr. Justice Brandeis) and Samuel D. Warren ("The Right to Privacy", 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193), is said to be one that inheres in an "inviolate personality". In the language of Judge Cooley: "The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: To be let alone." Cooley on Torts, 4th Ed. 34, § 18.

Where this right has been invaded, as for example, by using the name or photograph of a person without his authority, for advertising or commercial purposes, or by parading a person's intimate, private affairs before the public gaze, unjustifiably and against his will, some of the courts of this country have thought that no legal redress could be granted, largely because the right was unknown to the common law, and to recognize it would be judicial legislation. No one, however, has had the hardihood to excuse as ethically or morally defensible practices which, becoming increasingly common and in many instances more and more offensive and injurious, under modern social conditions and through the use of modern scientific inventions, give sharper point to the demand that in such cases courts discharge the function for which they exist, of administering justice and affording redress for wrongs committed.

See, also Johnson v. Boeing Airplane Co., 175 Kan. 275; York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (privacy interest in not having nude photos shown to others); Kyser-Smith v. Upscale Communications, 873 F. Supp. 1519.

Here the photo was taken without consent. The issue is whether or not the person taking the photo is using it for profit or gain. My argument would be that he is, since he is showing it to others in an effort to increase his own reputation.

I'm not saying the strongest case is presented here, it'd be better if he submitted it to a publisher or put the pictures up on an Internet site for profit, but I think there is enough here to make out a prima facie case, and certainly enough to file suit against this dude seeking injunctive relief for him to destroy/cease and desist publication of the photograph(s) to others, assuming that the photo was taken without consent.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Change it again.

Even if the girl could muster up enough guts to file a claim for damages, Oregon has no statute for the use of a camera in this manner. In fact, the closest statute on the books at this time is Chapter 165 of the Oregon revised Statutes which covers the interception of communications between two parties.

And what's most interesting is that Oregon law makes an exception to the prohibitions of this chapter in the following manner: A person may obtain a telecommunication or radio communication without consent, or a conversation without informing the participants, in his own home.

Since there is no statute which prohibits this behavior, there is no action except under invasion of privacy. And without a clear cause for damages, it's not going to happen.

 

[badapple40]

Change it again.

Even if the girl could muster up enough guts to file a claim for damages, Oregon has no statute for the use of a camera in this manner. In fact, the closest statute on the books at this time is Chapter 165 of the Oregon revised Statutes which covers the interception of communications between two parties.

And what's most interesting is that Oregon law makes an exception to the prohibitions of this chapter in the following manner: A person may obtain a telecommunication or radio communication without consent, or a conversation without informing the participants, in his own home.

Since there is no statute which prohibits this behavior, there is no action except under invasion of privacy. And without a clear cause for damages, it's not going to happen.

She doesn't have to prove actual damages. Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078. See, also, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974).

In Solano, the Ninth Circuit, construing Oregon law, held that testimony "regarding [Plaintiff's] humiliation and embarrassment is sufficient to establish a genuine issue with respect to damages and precludes summary judgment."

So she has to testify that she's upset about her nude photos being spread around.

You may not like the results Belize, and may not think the poster exercised the best judgment with respect to whom she chose to sleep with, and I'd certainly agree, but I think she's got enough to make a case.

And it sounds like we aren't dealing with a rocket scientist on the other side, so I'd think maybe the filing of the lawsuit may get the clown to back off with respect to the pictures.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Read those cases VERY CAREFULLY. The underlying issue is PUBLICATION.

And since there is no underlying statute for which damages can be recovered, it continues being a he-said, she-said.

Hence, a very LOOOOOOOOONG long shot.

But hey, let her spend about $20,000 or more to find this out. It's not my money or bare ass hanging out.

 

[badapple40]

He did "publish" in that he showed the pictures to others -- which is all it takes under the law.

I do agree, however, that her pursuit of this matter may not be cost effective. But I'm thinking there is more to this than the bottom line of what she ends up with respect to money damages. If someone had naked pictures of my wife out there, taken without her consent, I'd expend a large amount of money to force the issue.

On the other hand, the other party doesn't sound too sophisticated, so this thing may just go away for the cost of the filing fee when the other party defaults.

I love arguing with you.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

He did "publish" in that he showed the pictures to others -- which is all it takes under the law.

And that is where she will lose on motion to dismiss. There is no evidence of 'publication' and showing private property to a third-party is not publication.

And that's also where the case would fall apart.
1. prove she had a statutory expectation of privacy.
2. prove he took the pictures without permission.
3. prove she did anything to exercise her objection.
4. prove that publication occurred.
5. prove damages.

Since the first is very likely not going to happen without statutory foundation, the second can't follow and then 3, 4 and 5 are no longer issues.

 

[badapple40]

And that is where she will lose on motion to dismiss. There is no evidence of 'publication' and showing private property to a third-party is not publication.

And that's also where the case would fall apart.
1. prove she had a statutory expectation of privacy.
2. prove he took the pictures without permission.
3. prove she did anything to exercise her objection.
4. prove that publication occurred.
5. prove damages.

Since the first is very likely not going to happen without statutory foundation, the second can't follow and then 3, 4 and 5 are no longer issues.

"prove she had a statutory expectation of privacy."

No, her expectation of privacy is garnered under the common law, and, as I've already cited the case where Oregon recognizes the right a person has in his/her image. You are mistaken that there need be statutory support for it, where the Oregon Supreme Court has recognized the right.

Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Ore. 337 , discusses the publication requirement:

See also Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 113, at 798 ("There may be publication to any third person. It may be made to * * * the plaintiff's agent or employee. It may be made to the defendant's own agent, employee or officer, even where the defendant is a corporation." (footnotes omitted)).

I suggest you go back and review defamation/invasion of privacy law.

There are 4 causes of action that arise under an invasion of privacy claim. Some require publication, some do not.

1. Appropriation of Defendant's name by Plaintiff for a commercial advantage (unless he is selling the pictures, its not likely to arise);
2. Intrusion by Defendant into Plaintiff's privacy or seclusion. She's got him here, no publication requirement.
3. Publication of facts placing Plaintiff in a false light. (the pictures aren't false/photoshopped, so no cause here).
4. Publication of private facts about Plaintiff. (All she has to show is that he showed the pictures to someone else).

So, she can proceed under the second or fourth.

Regarding her consent, I'd think the pictures themselves would tend to prove that. If she was not consenting, or was sleeping, thats going to present a different situation than a provacative pose that would tend to prove consent.

Even if he says he had consent, his inability to produce a written consent, coupled with the photo showing her asleep, and her assertion that the photo was taken without consent is going to be enough.

As I said, from a practical matter, I would think this would probably resolve itself through the sending of a draft complaint and letter to the defendant, who will probably not want to play ball and will probably throw away the photos rather than get himself involved in a lawsuit.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And if you knew anything about law or how to read it, you would recognize that THIS is where your 'theory' falls apart.

You are mistaken, plain and simple. HE doesn't have to prove anything when she files any type of action. He simply needs to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in Oregon law for which a remedy can be claimed.

Also, you fail in a VERY IMPORTANT point. He doesn't have to prove consent. She is bringing the charges, the burden of proof that consent was not given is upon her.

Again, he said she said. There IS NO CASE! And if you are an attorney I suggest (STRONGLY) that you review the Oregon code of ethics. Advising a client to file a frivilous lawsuit can get your license suspended and you sanctioned.

 

[badapple40]

And if you knew anything about law or how to read it, you would recognize that THIS is where your 'theory' falls apart.

You are mistaken, plain and simple. HE doesn't have to prove anything when she files any type of action. He simply needs to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in Oregon law for which a remedy can be claimed.

Also, you fail in a VERY IMPORTANT point. He doesn't have to prove consent. She is bringing the charges, the burden of proof that consent was not given is upon her.

Again, he said she said. There IS NO CASE! And if you are an attorney I suggest (STRONGLY) that you review the Oregon code of ethics. Advising a client to file a frivilous lawsuit can get your license suspended and you sanctioned.

He said she said is why we have courts in the first place, to determine issues of fact. Her testimony/version of the facts is enough to move this case past the summary judgment point. In fact, we bring criminal cases throughout this country based sometimes on solely a complaintant's version of the facts. I've read the law, I've read her facts, and, while I am not licensed in Oregon, the ethics of Rule 11 is pretty universal and it seems to me she can make out a prima facie case. A strong case? No. But a case nonetheless.

 

[meganproser]

OMG, what a relief to see SOMEONE on this forum who understands Defamation/Privacy torts.

badapple is 100% correct in everything he/she has written.

Furthermore, even if the girl HAD given consent for the guy to take the pics, it does not give him the right to SHARE them with others. There are things we share in confidence with others, which we have every reason to believe will be kept confidential. If an individual confides in a friend that he was molested as a child, and that friend shares the info with ONE OTHER PERSON without the consent of the plaintiff, the friend has violated the plaintiff's right to privacy.

There is no statute necessary to bring an Invasion of Privacy claim.
The Fourth Amendment assures every US Citizen a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a constitutional right, actions that constitute a violation of that right are WELL ESTABLISHED in law, and based upon the OP's given information, she has a viable claim.

In an invasion of privacy claim the plaintiff must allege that there was an intentional intrusion on the seclusion of their private information, which was substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person, must allege that the matter was made known to the public at large (meaning it was not communicated in some privileged manner), and must show that the information disclosed would have caused mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

The OP does not need an attorney to pursue this claim. I suspect her real problem will be proving the guy showed the pictures to others without her consent.

>>He said she said is why we have courts in the first place, to determine issues of fact. Her testimony/version of the facts is enough to move this case past the summary judgment point. In fact, we bring criminal cases throughout this country based sometimes on solely a complaintant's version of the facts. I've read the law, I've read her facts, and, while I am not licensed in Oregon, the ethics of Rule 11 is pretty universal and it seems to me she can make out a prima facie case. A strong case? No. But a case nonetheless.

THANK YOU badapple!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

OMG, what a relief to see SOMEONE on this forum who understands Defamation/Privacy torts.

badapple is 100% correct in everything he/she has written.

Furthermore, even if the girl HAD given consent for the guy to take the pics, it does not give him the right to SHARE them with others.

Megan, aren't you tired of showing your ignorance?

Or would you like to take this case for free and run it all the way through the court system paying the cost of litigation yourself?

OH WAIT, YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY. So I guess that is a big NO.

 

[meganproser]

It's always so easy for you to tell these peeps they have no legal recourse. You won't understand until someone chooses to defame you or reveal highly personal information about you. THEN, you will take a few minutes and learn something about YOUR rights and THEN, you will finally understand that there IS recourse for such offenses.

I understand that you are an attorney and as such, you are only interested in cases that can at least pay for themselves. This defendant probably does not have the money to pay costs, much less a judgment. It’s obvious and understandable why you would send the OP on her way if she were asking YOU to represent her.

A claim is no less valid just because it's unprofitable. You do these people a disservice, adding insult to injury, when you tell them there is nothing they can do if someone violates their rights. This creates the kind of frustration that causes some people to take matters into their own hands in ways that will NOT benefit society.

PLEASE BB, do some research on intentional torts.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

intentional torts? Megan when will you learn that you can throw out law school rhetoric all you want, even cite case law, but we're talking about Oregon here and unlike your student papers, Oregon, last time I noticed, has its own Tort law.

So, for your further education:

Oregon is a “modified comparative fault” state. In order to recover, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant is at least 50% at fault. If a defendant is less than 50%, there is no recovery. There are certain types of cases in which “pure comparative” will apply similar to the state of Washington and other states. An example of this are the Employer Liability Act and certain maritime claims.

In Oregon, damages related to personal injury are divided into two categories of “noneconomic” and “economic”. These are basically the same as the older designation of “general” and “special” damages. The distinction may be significant because Oregon has a statutory limit of $500,000 on noneconomic damages. This cap has recently been held unconstitutional by the Oregon Court of Appeals for personal injury claims. However, the limit has been held enforceable for wrongful death claims.

Punitive damages are also allowed in Oregon for intentional, willful or wanton conduct. There is some dispute as to whether reckless conduct will suffice. It is clear that “gross negligence” or “simple negligence” will not suffice. Generally, injuries that result from voluntary intoxication will suffice. Recovery of punitive damages requires a higher standard of proof. The plaintiff must establish those damages by “clear and convincing” evidence. There is also a special distribution schedule which restricts the amount of money the claimant will receive.

In 1995, the Oregon Legislature made several changes on the law of punitive damages. First, a plaintiff is allowed to allege punitive damages only after proving to the court by affidavits and other evidence facts sufficient to meet the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Only after this showing may plaintiff plead the claim and obtain financial information from the defendant. Plaintiffs can no longer simply include a punitive damage claim to harass or annoy a defendant.


Finally, the state receives 60% of any punitive damage award. The remaining 40% is paid to the prevailing party, with 20% being the maximum amount that can go to the attorney. Taken together, these provisions should result in punitive damage claims being sought only in cases where the conduct truly merits the claim.

Not much worth it for such a NOTHING case. For the attorney OR the Plaintiff now is there?

Now, since you enjoy taking shots at me without understanding the real life application for what you are studying but "at times" seem to want to learn, I suggest you read the Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 30 — Actions and Suits in Particular Cases

And then you tell me under what statute this poster would be able to state a claim for damages and, if she does, what standard of proof will be required of her to prevail and then how she is going to prove measurable damages for which recovery is allow under Oregon Statute?

 

[left_coast_punk]

*This is she

As I said before, I have saved conversations with him where I ask him until I get frustrated to delete them, and he refuses with manipulative responses/excuses. I have him saying he showed them to two friends - both of whom I know, and can contact and ask if they'd ever testify.

The most important things are: I don't want money out of this, don't have the money for a big huge court issue - I just want to get some legal official to help in getting him to delete them - and know for a fact that they no longer exsist.

My boyfriend and I went to the ex's dorm, sat down with disks for him to put the pictures on, and instead of doing as he said he would when the meeting was discuseed, he barely payed attention to us while brushing off the whole deal with another excuse - his Disc burner wasn't working or put together or something (maybe the software wasn't installed, but we had the time to wait while he did it) and he didn't "have the time" to deal with it and would get back to us when he "felt like it". While my boyfriend and I MADE the time to meet him at his dorm (which was arranged after a long battle with the ex because he refused to set a time, and made no promises that he'd even be there at the time WE set) and still got nowhere. (So we've pretty much exausted all peaceful attempts at getting them deleted, or on discs for proof, and no of no other way to go about it other than with a lawyer or official of some sort.)

It's a big deal to me because I know he has no qualms about showing the pictures to ANYone (and as mentioned, has shown them to more than one friend already), and is keeping them because he wants to keep SOME sort of connection with me, or "power", as some have put it, over me. I mean, why else would a guy keep a naked picture of a girl? He TOLD me he's "done his business" to them. I want this guy OUT of my life finally, so I can 'shake him from my leg', get him to stop harrassing my friends who go to school with him (where I used to go) and stop being so rude to my current boyfriend who's doing whatever he can (peacefully) to help me. It's been two years since I've been with the ex, and after blocking him from AIM, he still talks to my boyfriend in a rude manor, while still not responding to our statement telling him what legal lenghts we'll take this if he doesn't respond, agree, or comply at all. The last thing he said was, "you'd better stop talking to me." to my boyfriend, when he made the statement about legal matters.

Another thing that worries me, is the ex's family consists of ..80% politicians, and 20% lawyers. He's good at making loopholes for himself that let him do whatever the heck he wants if he wasn't effecting my life in a negative way, it wouldn't be such a problem - but he's disrespected the majority of the peple in my life, harrassed them, and seriously makes me uncomfortable in all ways.

This has happened to a friend of mine - same deal, but in Arizona, so she couldn't give me a hotline number appropriate for me in Oregon. She got what she needed, yet I'm still stuck.

Thank you for all your posts! I appreciate them very much, and we're looking through our phonebooks for good numbers.

I'd really like to find a laywer or governemnt official who can help me retreive the pictures so we can evaluate them, and the situation, so we can see if I truly do have a case. We've taken some of the cases down that have been mentioned in this thread, and are looking into them - thanks again!