BritChick Paris: I'm 38 and Want a Baby - Is it Too Late?
Lisa Bloom: The Most Honest Commencement Speech You'll Never Hear
Imagine that, for some reason, you let your boyfriend take naked pictures of you. And then you broke up. And your now-ex-boyfriend posted those private pictures on the Internet. What would your initial reaction be? Burning shame? Murderous rage? One Chicago woman decided to take legal action.
Jessica Voth was understandably mortified when she received a call from a friend saying he'd seen her naked on a Web site that actively encourages men to post nudie photos of their exes. But now she's filing a lawsuit against her ex seeking compensatory and punitive damages against him for emotional distress and an invasion of her privacy.
She's suing for an "unspecified" amount," but it would take an awful lot of money to soothe us if our naughty bits had been broadcast to the whole Internet.
It's too bad her ex, Miles Marsh, didn't keep his promise to keep those pictures private. Now in addition to having to own up financially, we're betting he's not going to have the easiest time finding a new girlfriend, either.
More stuff from around the web:
Is this monstrosity the "perfect pet"? (Lemondrop)
Children's stories that make us cry. (Burbia)
Cool and bizarro chairs. (Dornob)
Comments:
Add a comment
Friday 14 August
By wesley
If you allow someone to take pictures of yourself nude you should have no legal right to press legal charges against them. He was under no contract that says he cannot show the pictures to someone else. Inmoral yes!! Illegal NO!!! If you do not want your pictures to turn up on the internet then dont take them.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Peg
Wesley, he had no legal contract that said that he *could* post the photos. In order to publish photos of a recognizable person, you need a signed release form from the subject... from the model. He owns the copyright to the photos but he did not have the right to publish them without a release signed by his girlfriend. But besides that, people have a right to privacy and the boyfriend violated privacy laws as well. If he told her he would not publish them, then he has to uphold that agreement, verbal or not. She gave him permission to photograph herself in private and she has a legal right to expect that her privacy would be maintained. He violated several laws.
And for those of you who think that you can do anything you want with your camera, think again. If you photograph your neighbor while he's picking his nose and you publish that photo, your neighbor can sue you - even if he gave you permission to take the photo. In order to publish that photo, your neighbor would have to have given you written and signed permission. You can't just walk around taking humiliating photos of people and publishing them... that's why there's such a thing called a "Model Release Form."
Are there sites out there that allow people to publish photos without releases? Yup. But that doesn't make them legal or correct. The law says if you publish a photo of a person who is recognizable, you must obtain their permission to use their photo before you publish it.
Friday 14 August
By B A Briggs
As for those who are blaming Ms. Voth, please note the following:
a- you, folks, are 'blaming the messenger for the bad message';
b- "LOVE is blind and lovers cannot see their way" far enough to anticipate any so-called 'side-effects' of future non-loving relationships;
c- Risks are constituent-parts-and-parcels of human existence; and only those who are courageous enough to take personal risks affirmatively can enjoy the true joys and real essence of Life;
d- Isaac Newton has sufficiently defined the laws of dynamics to include that "for every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction" - which in this case at bar, Ms. Voth appears to have been conned into loving her ex-beau to the extent she submitted herself wholly and fully just as anyone who is truly in love would similarly do given such affectionately-sexual circumstances. That was very generous and virtuous of her, dontcha think?
On the other hand, a bona fide trustee must preserve the sanctity of stuffs duly entrusted unto his/her utmost personal care, protection and trusteeship - holding them untouchable and inviolable over and above his/her personal interests. Which is the philosophical and legal principle of 'fiduciary responsibility' inherently invested by law unto a trustee. As such trustee of Ms. Voth's love, affections and personal virtues, the prima facie evidence presented in this case at bar realistically-shows that Mr. Miles Marsh has amply, maliciously and libelously-grossly violated the terms and conditions - unwritten and unvocalized they may have been - of his trusteeship 'contract' vis-a-vis Ms. Voth's nude photos duly entrusted in himself.
There is no written contract, eh? Well, is there a writ 'tween a child and parent that specifically states the latter's fiduciary responsibilities in caring and nurturing the former - which when violated egregiously maliciously, can get the parent criminally-charged for criminal neglect, et cetera, before a court of law? Hence explains the fact that in the personal affairs of mankind, there are unwritten agreements with which one person is legally obligated to dutifully do, is personally responsible for, and therefore is personally accountable unto someone for the obligatory performance of such matters duly placed in his/her trusteeship.
Ms. Voth likewise submitted her case to the proper venue of Justice; and certainly not for her public censure prior to court judgment. For anyone to adjudge her guilty at this juncture is to open oneself to public judgment - as a natural consequence of Newton's law of dynamics/motion as well as God's scriptural advisory to 'not judge others unless one wants to be judge' as a direct result. . .
Reply
Friday 14 August
By gere
Heads up folks, when you give a person a gift (the pictures) he or she can obviously do with them as he/she chooses. I see no basis for lawsuit ither than this woman is now embarrasssed. And question, what exactly was her friend doing to see these pictures on the Internet? She should have just had her look and then left it alone.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By yokoach
how many times do people have to do this to get it???? IF YOU DON'T WANT NUDE PICTURES OF YOURSELF POSTED ON THE INTERNET THEN DON'T TAKE THEM! And this whole hogwash of "because she was in love with him and trusted him" is a naive justification for taking them in the first place....as for whether or not she's a slut....no...naked pictures do not make you a slut, they make you stupid and is he a jerk...yes....however it doesn't make him a perv....
Reply
Friday 14 August
By TIGERWOMAN51
First off if he's taking pix with a cell phone, I would have been a little leary to have him take nude pix of me. Don't these stupid women see it happen all the time or maybe they put the pix out there themselves and then cry wolf so they can sue someone. Serves her right for not using better judgement.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By chris
My Father said years ago " Never in writing, never in photographs". I have preached this to my kids. And, now, in the internet age it is an even better mantra to live by. It is very unfortunate the people we love and care about can turn into our worst nightmare regarding private, personal matters, as years pass. I would encourage ALL people to take these stories as a warning. If you photograph your self in compromising situations. It will appear on the internet.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Big B
Federal copyright law considers photographs to be the property of the photographer, not the subject. They only way this woman is going to get any money is if she didn't know he was being photographed, and if that is the case it's a criminal matter.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Peg
Big B, federal copyright law isn't the end of it. There are also privacy laws that apply here. Let's discuss something called a "Model Release." If a photographer publishes a photo of a person who is *recognizable* without a signed release from the model, he is responsible for damages. Copyright has nothing to do with it. If I take a photo of a crowd of people and I publish the photo on my website, and some of the people in the photo are recognizable, then I need to get those people to sign a release before I publish the photo. Do I own the copyright to that photo? Yup. But I still don't have the right to publish the photo without permission from those in the crowd that are clearly recognizable. Particularly in light of the fact that the photos of this woman were taken in privacy, the photographer (boyfriend) who published nude photos of his subject (girlfriend) is liable for damages because not only do laws requiring a model release kick in but also, privacy laws kick in... the photographer (boyfriend) published photos that represented his subject (girlfriend) in a way that she would not approve for public view. She did not give him the right to publish the photos in any way but especially, she did not give him the right to publish photos taken of her in privacy. She did not sign a release allowing him to publish the photos. For more info on model releases, visit www dot danheller dot com / techfaq dot html
Friday 14 August
By j
The pics are his private property to do with as he wishes! She doesn't have a case at all. Unless there was some sort of contract that makes these pics her private property, she should be SOL. I hope the judge has the presence of mind to notice her participation in the "photoshoot"
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Geri
What a scum bag. If someone trust you enough to allow you to photograph them then be a man and use them for your own enjoyment, not for the world to enjoy....I am sure there are naked pictures of him as well, only he didn't submit them, or cropped himself out of the photo.....SCUMBAG!!!! Hope she makes your life miserable as well, Pay back is coming your way.......
Reply
Friday 14 August
By dmarvn webster
Okay boys and girls now listen. Anyone who thinks that this female will collect one red cent from this guy is spitting into the wind. From what's been reported, he did not MAKE her take her clothes to have the pictures made. Everyone watch this down the road and you might learn something. That something is to not let your boyfriend or girlfriend take pictures of you nude. END OF STORY!
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Marcie
When I was a young cute thing, my mama gave me a couple of pieces of good advice. They were: 1. Never have a picture taken that you cannot show your grandchildren, and 2. Keep angry letters for three days before you send them. These two rules have kept me out of some trouble, I am sure. Take a lesson, young women. The pictures will still be there after he's gone.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By mermaid
I have mixed feelings about this... On the one hand, it was incredibly wrong, not to mention hurtful, of the guy to betray someone like that. On the other hand, it was a little naive of the girl to believe that she could really trust someone with nude photos, especially if there was a chance they'd break up.
But I guess when you're in a relationship you just assume that they won't do something like that...
Reply
Friday 14 August
By dmollykins
There's a reason why you don't let ANYONE take nude photos of you for ANY reason, this is one of them.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By kuuipo018
I really have no sympathy for her because if you take naked pictures chances are someone unwanted is going to see them. If she didn't want the world to see them she should have made sure they were deleted or destroyed after their breakup. On the other hand, he shouldn't have been an asshat and put them on a website. It was juvenile and stupid. So sue away lady, see what happens.
Reply
Friday 14 August
By earl
too crazy
Reply
Friday 14 August
By Leom
And.......... what was the friend doing at the web site? Just checking I suppose lol
Reply
Friday 14 August
By SaintAgnessEve
Sounds like the time honored rule "Ya play,Ya Pay"
Reply
Friday 14 August
By drsw12
If she agreed to let the guy take the pictures, then they should be his property, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with them. She shouldn't have let him take the pictures if she didn't want anyone else to see them.
Reply