3 ms·

I think you could make the case that they had a legal obligation. Isn't this what the DMCA is for? You get safe harbour providing you take down content which is

by analog 14y ago

I think you could make the case that they had a legal obligation. Isn't this what the DMCA is for? You get safe harbour providing you take down content which is objected to on request.

tadfisher 14y ago
The DMCA protects service providers against copyright violations, not extortion attempts.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  This may be what the law says, but lets be honest: the DMCA has been used so many times when it is clearly not applicaple, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it.
  - tadfisher 14y ago
    If you send a DMCA takedown notice when you know you do not have the rights to the content, you are liable for all legal costs and economic damages incurred by the defense. Diebold was a notable defendant in a false takedown case in 2004, for example [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
16s 14y ago
DMCA is not what you think. She does not hold the copyright to her nude photos unless she took the photos herself. The photographer or the company that employs the photographer holds the copyright. A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.
- abiank 14y ago
  you hold the rights to your image, unless you're in public space and/or have signed a waiver.
  - unreal37 14y ago
    Its not so clear cut. You have three rights: (1) a right to privacy, (2) a right to protect against defamation, and (3) a right to the use of your image to promote a product "only if the general public would recognize you". So only if you're famous. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-the-use-of-your-image-or-likeness.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-th...
- analog 14y ago
  "while others she says she never sent to anyone and may have been lifted from her phone or computer" There you go. Also as another commenter you need model release forms. You are the rights holder of any likenesses of yourself.

by analog 14y ago

I think you could make the case that they had a legal obligation. Isn't this what the DMCA is for? You get safe harbour providing you take down content which is objected to on request.

tadfisher 14y ago

The DMCA protects service providers against copyright violations, not extortion attempts.

tomjen3 14y ago
This may be what the law says, but lets be honest: the DMCA has been used so many times when it is clearly not applicaple, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it.
- tadfisher 14y ago
  If you send a DMCA takedown notice when you know you do not have the rights to the content, you are liable for all legal costs and economic damages incurred by the defense. Diebold was a notable defendant in a false takedown case in 2004, for example [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold

16s 14y ago

DMCA is not what you think. She does not hold the copyright to her nude photos unless she took the photos herself. The photographer or the company that employs the photographer holds the copyright. A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.

abiank 14y ago
you hold the rights to your image, unless you're in public space and/or have signed a waiver.
- unreal37 14y ago
  Its not so clear cut. You have three rights: (1) a right to privacy, (2) a right to protect against defamation, and (3) a right to the use of your image to promote a product "only if the general public would recognize you". So only if you're famous. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-the-use-of-your-image-or-likeness.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-th...
analog 14y ago
"while others she says she never sent to anyone and may have been lifted from her phone or computer" There you go. Also as another commenter you need model release forms. You are the rights holder of any likenesses of yourself.