Slashdot Mirror
Craig Brittain (Revenge Porn King) Sues For Use of Image
retroworks writes "Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey leads with, "Revenge-porn impresario Craig Brittain is learning the hard way that karma is a real witch." The report states that the Federal Trade Commission has settled a complaint against Brittain, whose defunct site, "Is Anybody Down" was accused of unfair business practices. From the article: "The site paid its bills by soliciting women's nude photos on Craigslist and/or from their exes, publishing the photos without the women's permission (and often with their names and phone numbers attached), and then charging fees of $200 to $500 to take the photos down." Brittain agreed to destroy the image and never operate a revenge porn site again. However, On Feb. 9, "Brittain filed a takedown request to Google, demanding that the search engine stop linking to nearly two dozen URLs — including a number of news articles, and files on the case from the FTC — because they used photos of him and information about him without his permission." Ars Technica explains. "In this instance, fair use and general First Amendment principles are on Google's and the media's side."
Is this guy even a little concerned that there might be a hell?
Don't get your panties all bunched up, the courts will see through this ruse.
This time the victim is a man and the perpetrator are big corporations, so fair use and general First Amendment principles are on their side.
If he wins he gets what he wants. If he loses, he can go right back to appeals and get his cases overturned.
#karma
Nor should it.
So this guy has *exactly* the same privacy rights as any other public figure has, neither more nor less. These rights are fewer than those enjoyed by non-public figures, but they are not zero. He can't stop people from using his image and name, any more than Kim Kardashian can. While in a sense she owns her public persona, she doesn't own every image of her that is taken in public. In other words people can't use her image to sell things as if she endorsed them, but they can use and even sell the image itself.
If this guy owns the copyright to an image, he can reasonably file a DMCA takedown. If the image is taken in a situation in which a public figure would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. inside his house), then he can take other legal steps, even though allowing that to happen would be poetic justice. The law doesn't deal in poetic justice, and judges aren't allowed to stop enforcing the law just because it would be cool.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why does it say learning the hard way as it seem he's deliberately applying the same logic used to accuse him. Also are the nudes still up?
....is highly offensive to us magi.
Agreed. Everyone should know your real name, your address and the fact that you rape kittens. No limits to speech I say!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No limits to freedom of speech! The hit I put out on Anonymous Coward is clearly covered.
Interesting comment to post as an Anonymous Coward. If you feel that strongly you should be posting from a username which is your true legal first and last name and include your phone number as well. Oh, and to prove you really believe what you are saying, post a compromising nude photo of yourself as well. Umm, on second thought skip the photo.
Yeah, yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls.
Even in the sex-free-est society, revenge porn is not seen as being good. The guy is an asshole (and anybody having posted photo there without consent) and may his reputation follow him around. This has nothing to do with sex being shameful or not, and everything to do with consent and revenge.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... karma is a real witch.
Pretty sure that's not the right word - unless you're Lanie Jordan. Get some balls Washington Post.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Where are the Fibbies when you need them? Guy was running an extortion racket. You or I did what he did, we'd be sitting in a Federal pen right now. But, no, we've got to make this an FTC issue about the long trendy and topical Internet scourge known as "revenge porn", which is one of those useful shibboleths which may be rediscovered anew every week, due to the 5-second attention span of the populace. However, loathsome as such may be, you cannot address it from that perspective without limiting expression. Does no one else see this at part of a broader attack on the 1st amendment?
Douchebag has a point, even if he's an absurd one to be making it.
Karma is a BITCH. B-I-T-C-H. You know, like Romulus and Remus's mom?
This is a common saying much like "Life is a bitch and then you die." or "Well ain't that a bitch?" how could you get it wrong?... Wait, are you one of those people who types things like "For all intensive porpoises autocorrect works fine!"?
Please proofread if you use autocorrect, otherwise you may come off as an idiot who doesn't know their sayings.
You missed the part in the OP's post "So this guy has *exactly* the same privacy rights as any other public figure has, neither more nor less. These rights are fewer than those enjoyed by non-public figures". The "victims" of this revenge porn are most likely no public figures and therefore have a stronger protection.
Not that I approve of the individual or his "business", but he is essentially throwing the shoe on the other foot -- accusing others of what he is accused of. Of course it may be more greenmail, or we will have to endure a ruling (summary judgement likely) on exactly who is "a public figure".
He is not [yet] a convict, politician or other entertainer who might be said to have voluntarily exposed their persona to the public. He, much like his victims, would rather remain private. The serious question is whether Google etal had a right to dox him or whether their stories would have had equal weight without the personal identification. And precisely how he is legally distinguishable from his victims.
If you thought it was hard to convice a girlfriend to pose for naked photos before, this asshole just made it impossible.
You really don't think he understands the irony of his request?
You really don't think he understands (or was explained) the flimsy legal basis for his request?
You really don't think he knew that the headline "Man who violated privacy upset about privacy violation" was going to spread like crack?
Please do not feed the trolls
Please do not reward the media whores.
Yep, Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I don't have a problem until you get to the extortion part.
I probably will be a professor eventually," he says. "After I make all the money, and get old, turn 50-something. I'll be old and gray-haired and over-the-hill, I'll be teaching English in some rural facility somewhere. And I'll be like, 'You know, I used to be a famous celebrity. Here I am in your English class, and I used to be somebody famous.
There are too many other nuggets in there, here is just one...
The job market is really screwed up. A talented guy like me is easily worth seven figures or more in a good economy. ... Do you know what I'd be doing with my life if it wasn't for this website? Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Back against the wall, going to interview after interview and being rejected like every other honest, hard-working American
Gonna have a real hard time finding work now buddy. And you can forget about finding a girlfriend for a long time too. Sadly, I don't think this is the last we hear of this scum.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence