Slashdot Mirror


Google Threatened With $100M Lawsuit Over Nude Celebrity Photos

Dave Knott writes A Los Angeles lawyer representing over a dozen female celebrities, is threatening to sue Google for $100 million US over nude photos leaked online from personal iCloud accounts. The law firm Lavely & Singer accuses the web giant of "accommodating, facilitating and perpetuating" the distribution of the photos when it failed to remove the images from its search results. The stars involved in the law firm's action were not named, but the law firm alleges many of their photos still exist on Google sites like BlogSpot and YouTube four weeks after the firm ordered them taken down.

8 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're nudie pics ain't even worth a million. Seriously, your bodies aren't that hot. Get over yourselves.

  2. Yes google is the badguy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like apple is the only one really worth going after since they failed at brute force protection.
    but hey lets just shotgun sue and see if we can get way the fuck richer.

    fuck you hollywood whores

  3. Suspicious law firm? by pkinetics · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Claim to be filling on behalf of "celebs" in hopes of actually drawing celebs to actually sign up. Throw a number so large out there the celebs will think "Hey, I can benefit from this."

    Law firm may not have even a single client yet. Threatening to sue is not the same as actually filling.

  4. why not apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    so why aren't they suing apple as the responsible party for the reason they got onto the internet in the first place? no let's sue google .... makes perfect cents to me.

  5. Re:Stupid move, celebrity by Stan92057 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Google sites like BlogSpot and YouTube four weeks after the firm ordered them taken down."

    Um Google owns the Blogger site so ya they are hosting the images. So they are making money from the images because they draw more people and that means more ads placed, more ads clicked, more ads sold. Bit of a women hater hu?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  6. Re:Stupid move, celebrity by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Um Google owns the Blogger site so ya they are hosting the images. So they are making money from the images because they draw more people and that means more ads placed, more ads clicked, more ads sold. Bit of a women hater hu?

    Were DMCA requests filed against the specific web pages hosting those pics? Or did they file a request for the images to be taken down from one person's blog, and assume that request runs to perpetuity for all future occurrences of the same image? Some people think Google actively monitors all the content on their services and will see the files automatically.

  7. Re:Makes Sense by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While they might not know how to use an address bar they do know how to follow links, so to send a site down a black hole Google would also have to blacklist all the sites linking to it. Besides, I doubt Google would like to be so blatant as the Great Firewall of China, if you search for a particular site you'll find it. If you're only vaguely close though it might end up on page 10 instead of page 2. Google needs to appear neutral, they're just an action house selling off adwords to the highest bidder while displaying whatever search results their robots have found. If they start messing with that image though obviously taking sides they'll lose far more business than they gain. Google is now to online marketing what lawyers are to lawsuits, no matter what side wins they always get paid. They'd have to be really, really dense to mess with that.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Hardly by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google removed the pictures every time they received a take down notice, and continues to do so when people create new accounts and upload new copies. What is not being removed are news stories (including blogger reports) that _show_ some of these images in redacted form.

    This claim is to make money and promote people, not about any real harm. A secondary effect is to get back to promoting internet censorship. I'm guessing that the same scum involved in framing 4chan to promote internet censorship is involved here somewhere. If this case ever makes it to court the prosecution should be laughed away and have to pay Google's legal expenses.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.