Revenge Porn Website Owners Ordered To Pay Woman $385K

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I guess this paves the way for more revenge porn sites to be sued into oblivion. Too bad the judgment was for only $385K though.

The unidentified plaintiff sued the pair last May in Ohio after discovering "sexually explicit images" of herself on the site that were taken when she was underage. Tuesday's judgment included $150,000 for each of the child pornography claims, $10,000 for violating the woman's "right of publicity," and $75,000 in punitive damages, according to Marc Randazza, the plaintiff's attorney in the case.
 
Funny if right after the woman who won the lawsuit then gets charged with the production of child pornography since she was underage when she took the photos :D
 
What a couple of trashy scumbags.

Judgement should be higher, since the RIAA/MPAA sues for far higher than that.
 
If you don't want to see naked pictures of yourself online, don't take naked pictures of yourself and send them to other people because once you send them, the rights to that picture belong to them.

/thread
 
If you don't want to see naked pictures of yourself online, don't take naked pictures of yourself and send them to other people because once you send them, the rights to that picture belong to them.

/thread

People like Erin Andrews, or boy friends who take pictures of their GFs?
 
I'll bet you $385k that she posted the images herself.

This is actually the perfect business model for any 17 year old aspiring porn actress.
 
People like Erin Andrews, or boy friends who take pictures of their GFs?

Erin Andrews is different as it was taken without permission. A GF who allows herself to be photographed has no legal right to the pictures.
 
The whole US law regarding under-age and sex is BS on its own. Move along.
 
Good to see that's done, but it's sad to see so many people here thinking with their little head. Typical boys though so what can you do besides replacing them with something that uses batteries?
 
anyone have links to these sites so i can review if they really are damaging or not.... ;)


jk
 
Erin Andrews is different as it was taken without permission. A GF who allows herself to be photographed has no legal right to the pictures.

Posted without permission and taken without are completely different. I see nothing that indicates the pictures were taken without permission or even a reasonable explanation that they could of been. So frankly I fail to see how the hosting site is liable or even should be. Don't want your naked ass online? Don't take the pictures i'mn the first place. I have zero sympathy for these attention whores who get posted.
 
A GF who allows herself to be photographed has no legal right to the pictures.
BS, I doubt she wanted them to be posted online with her personal info(PI). If she was posing for her BF, then those are for the sole use of her BF, not for the whole wide world to see. If they had a bad falling out, then 1) the ex should've kept them just for him, or 2) deleted them.

Now if she posted them to a website with her PI, then she has no rights. If she was a nude model for a site, she has limited rights which are defined in her contract.
 
Requiring name, address, and demanding ransom to have your pics removed. The douchebaggery is epic. His address and personal information should be posted so his victims can find him and personally encourage him to remove their pics.
 
BS, I doubt she wanted them to be posted online with her personal info(PI). If she was posing for her BF, then those are for the sole use of her BF, not for the whole wide world to see. If they had a bad falling out, then 1) the ex should've kept them just for him, or 2) deleted them.

Now if she posted them to a website with her PI, then she has no rights. If she was a nude model for a site, she has limited rights which are defined in her contract.

That's not how the law is written. I stand by my original post. If you don't want nude pictures online don't let them be taken in the first place.
 
So if you think girls who let their boyfriend snap nude pictures of them are a bit dumb you also believe that a girl who dress in a provocative way is asking to be raped?

That's quite the statement to make...

Posting the picture online isn't that big of a deal but posting the personal info is taking it to another level where, I agree, should be prosecuted.
 
Except it is.

Except it isn't.

Yeah, it's pretty much what you're saying. There's no reason to backpedal now and maybe thinking it through before posting would have been a better idea. :(

No it isn't what I'm saying and I'm not going to backpedal from anything. Posting a picture that someone "Voluntarily" took online is a world different from saying "Someone dressed like a slut and should be raped". I can't even imagine the insane leap of logic it required for you to make that kind of asinine statement as comparable. A picture at worst is embarrassing, someone being physically violated is a completely different thing. If you can't see the huge difference there, then I'm not going to sit here and attempt to argue a blatant strawman argument.

Point is, the website really isn't responsible for jack. Now if you want to argue that the jackass who "Posted" the pictures should be held accountable in Civil (not criminal) court. Then sure that I can see.Only thing I see here is a website taking advantage of dumbasses. Are they douchebags? Yes but then last I checked being a douchebag isn't a punishable offense.
 
Too bad the judgment was for only $385K though.
She shouldn't get a penny IMO.

Herself and her boyfriend should be facing underage (don't like to call it "child" if she was 17.8 yrs old) pornagraphy charges, as well as the porn website for distribution as they have the burden of checking that the "actors" are of age before distributing.

Leave the lawyers out of it, and no one should be getting rich off of this. Should have fines and punishments for all involved.
 
She shouldn't get a penny IMO.

Herself and her boyfriend should be facing underage (don't like to call it "child" if she was 17.8 yrs old) pornagraphy charges, as well as the porn website for distribution as they have the burden of checking that the "actors" are of age before distributing.

Leave the lawyers out of it, and no one should be getting rich off of this. Should have fines and punishments for all involved.

Lawyers are always involved, that's how the system works...
 
So let me get this straight.

1. Post pictures of GF on revenge porn website.
2. Have GF sue them.
3. Profit.

Just seems too easy
 
Lawyers are always involved, that's how the system works...
Well I mean don't make it a civil suit, as she should be awarded nearly twice the value of my home I pay my entire life for, for doing something idiotic in the first place.

They should all just have criminal charges filed, same as if they comitted assault or ran a stop sign or some other crime.
 
So if you think girls who let their boyfriend snap nude pictures of them are a bit dumb you also believe that a girl who dress in a provocative way is asking to be raped?

If a girl lets her boyfriend take nude photos of her, she let him do it. A girl wearing provocative clothing doesn't ask to be raped until she does ask. There is a distinction here. One asks for an action to be taken, the other does not.
 
What in the fuck?

You guys saying this stuff about "acceptable rape" are full of yourselves. No one here said that the girls were asking for RAPE, because no one here was RAPED at all! The photos were taken consentually and then posted without consent. This is equivalent to posting a sex tape you made with your ex wife because you hate her, which is a far cry away from RAPING her because of what she may have been wearing.

If you want to come up with an equivalent analogy, it would be more like putting hidden cameras in an ex's house. There is no consent with rape, whereas here there was -- at least when the photos were taken originally. Just like when you give someone a gift, you can't then expect to have control of what they do with that gift.

Learn some common sense before jumping to conclusions, whydontcha?
 
Except it isn't.



No it isn't what I'm saying and I'm not going to backpedal from anything. Posting a picture that someone "Voluntarily" took online is a world different from saying "Someone dressed like a slut and should be raped". I can't even imagine the insane leap of logic it required for you to make that kind of asinine statement as comparable. A picture at worst is embarrassing, someone being physically violated is a completely different thing. If you can't see the huge difference there, then I'm not going to sit here and attempt to argue a blatant strawman argument.

Point is, the website really isn't responsible for jack. Now if you want to argue that the jackass who "Posted" the pictures should be held accountable in Civil (not criminal) court. Then sure that I can see.Only thing I see here is a website taking advantage of dumbasses. Are they douchebags? Yes but then last I checked being a douchebag isn't a punishable offense.

You have to sign a release to permit a broadcast TV company to put your face on a screen or use it in a movie/video/show. The company profits from it. If it didn't get permission from the person who's face or body is being transmitted to get clicks and make profits, then they're liable and responsible for the lack of having permission. The company owes her money regardless of how you feel and is probably liable for up to triple damages.

I know most boys would get upset at this because there were boobies involved, but it wouldn't matter if they were just posting photos of people with clothes on. They're liable because the subject of the photo images didn't consent to the company using those images to generate profit. The company made the mistake of building a service that lets stuff get posted without permission so they were dumb and should pay for doing stuff wrong.
 
You have to sign a release to permit a broadcast TV company to put your face on a screen or use it in a movie/video/show. The company profits from it. If it didn't get permission from the person who's face or body is being transmitted to get clicks and make profits, then they're liable and responsible for the lack of having permission. The company owes her money regardless of how you feel and is probably liable for up to triple damages.

I know most boys would get upset at this because there were boobies involved, but it wouldn't matter if they were just posting photos of people with clothes on. They're liable because the subject of the photo images didn't consent to the company using those images to generate profit. The company made the mistake of building a service that lets stuff get posted without permission so they were dumb and should pay for doing stuff wrong.

You're missing the point of the consent to be photographed. These women had consented to be photographed, and allowed the individual (or sent the individual) to use that photograph for whatever purposes they saw fit. At that point, the pictures belong to the individual and not the one photographed. Just because they desire to withdraw consent at a future time doesn't mean that they have the right to withdraw it. I'm sure these web sites have some sort of release to sign for the uploader of the picture who is uploading a picture that belongs to him.

You can argue all you want about how you don't like it, but that's the way the law is written right now.
 
You have to sign a release to permit a broadcast TV company to put your face on a screen or use it in a movie/video/show. The company profits from it. If it didn't get permission from the person who's face or body is being transmitted to get clicks and make profits, then they're liable and responsible for the lack of having permission.
Wrong, the owner of the video provided it to the website, and the woman knowingly consented to be videotaped. And just as a matter of principle, no one should hit the damn lottery for being an idiot, which is what we are doing here.
 
You're missing the point of the consent to be photographed. These women had consented to be photographed, and allowed the individual (or sent the individual) to use that photograph for whatever purposes they saw fit. At that point, the pictures belong to the individual and not the one photographed. Just because they desire to withdraw consent at a future time doesn't mean that they have the right to withdraw it. I'm sure these web sites have some sort of release to sign for the uploader of the picture who is uploading a picture that belongs to him.

You can argue all you want about how you don't like it, but that's the way the law is written right now.

Nope, you're wrong. Unless there's some sort of written authorization that exists between the original two parties, one of the two can't go beyond personal use and the company profiting that didn't contact the original party to obtain consent is liable. You don't understand the legal ramifications because, if you were right, there wouldn't have been a court decision against the revenge porn website. IDK how you can even argue at all knowing that a settlement has already been reached and a set of legal professionals have already reached a conclusion. Do you really wanna see internet boobies that bad?
 
Nope, you're wrong. Unless there's some sort of written authorization that exists between the original two parties, one of the two can't go beyond personal use and the company profiting that didn't contact the original party to obtain consent is liable. You don't understand the legal ramifications because, if you were right, there wouldn't have been a court decision against the revenge porn website. IDK how you can even argue at all knowing that a settlement has already been reached and a set of legal professionals have already reached a conclusion. Do you really wanna see internet boobies that bad?

Maybe YOU didn't read the settlement. The reason this was a big deal was because she was underage when the pictures were taken. $300k of the judgment was because of that. $75k was for "emotional pain and suffering" and only $10k of it was for posting the pictures and violating your right of privacy. If the girl wasn't underage, I doubt they would have gotten a judgment at all.

This subject (not necessarily this case) is going to the supreme court at some point. Until it does, there are no legal ramifications.
 
...$75k was for "emotional pain and suffering" and only $10k of it was for posting the pictures and violating your right of privacy.

Why are you arguing with me if you're also providing supporting evidence in favor of the stuff I'm saying? You guys are utterly weird sometimes.

This subject (not necessarily this case) is going to the supreme court at some point. Until it does, there are no legal ramifications.

Legal precedents can be set by courts other than the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court considers those precedents in cases it hears. Even the smallest court in the most random, southern US backwater place like Texas or Georgia without electricity can establish precedence.
 
Wrong, the owner of the video provided it to the website, and the woman knowingly consented to be videotaped. And just as a matter of principle, no one should hit the damn lottery for being an idiot, which is what we are doing here.

The courts think otherwise and they're the ones which contain people that have law degrees. [H] lawyers who think mainly with their gonads aren't usually legal authorities on those matters. :p
 
Can someone please enlighten me as to how this won't be abused? Couldn't all the people on that website sue the company now and win?
 
The way things are going in fashion and culture, in about 30-50 years we'll all be walking around naked anyway.

And why not. Whoever here has never seen a dick or a pair of breasts raise their hand....come on don't be shy
 
Back
Top