Posting Pictures on the Internet

[leeman]

I am writing on behalf of a very good friend of mine in NY who's not too net/law savvy. Several years back, she posed willingly for personal photos (nude as well as the both of them in the act) for her boyfriend. They broke up, and she has since lost contact with him, but recently she found these pictures on a Yahoo Group.

The kicker is that although the pictures are of her, none of her actual data was published - the name, age, measurements, and stories about sxual experiences appeared totally made up. It seems that in this age of net use, this is happening allllll the time.

Been doing dome research and it appears that the ex would own the copyrights to the pics

QUESTIONS:
1. Does she have any recourse? We contacted Yahoo groups and they took down the offensive pics.
2. Is it worth subpoena of yahoo for the IP address and then the ISP for the person's data? What would this cost and is it worth it?
3. Is a civil suit worth it or is taking down the pictures enough?

Thanks for your help

[Mr. Knowitall]

1. Does she have any recourse? We contacted Yahoo groups and they took down the offensive pics.

That, at least, is some amount of redress.

2. Is it worth subpoena of yahoo for the IP address and then the ISP for the person's data? What would this cost and is it worth it?

You would have to initiate a court action and issue the subpoenas. If you are not comfortable doing that yourself, you would need to retain a lawyer to assist you. You can find out the cost of filing a lawsuit from your county court.

3. Is a civil suit worth it or is taking down the pictures enough?

Ultimately that's something your friend will have to decide.

[leeman]

thank you for the reply. I read somewhere that there may be no real recourse in NY statute or common law because the ex-boyfriend owns the copyright since he took the picture. However, I am surprised that there is not a stronger defam law in NY. Any thoughts on that?

[Mr. Knowitall]

There is no defamation in distributing an accurate photograph, even if edited (although there may be defamatory material in any associated caption or text). An accurate picture is not a false statement. There may, however, be a privacy-related tort that is implicated, such as invasion of privacy, depending on state law.

[leeman]

sorry if I didn't fully understand the reply

basically the pics were altered to include verbage that was totally made up. for example, different name, age, occupation, etc.

i would think this is defamatory - therefore an implication of invasion of privacy?

[jaytlow]

I don't know if this helps...as she was willing and aware that the photographs were taken but perhaps some fraction under Unlawful Surveillance may apply as per disemination of the photos. You will need to Google the entire statue to see.

Unlawful Surveillance in the second degree is a class D felony (250.45). A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when—for his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent...

[normantrahan]

Sue The Person , Im Going Through Something Similar