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."

Comments

Sulfur

[Limekiller42]

Is this guy even a little concerned that there might be a hell?

Re:Sulfur

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you not concerned about the anti-sexual religious morality police that create such an aura of shame and disgust around sex?

While I have no doubt that what he was doing was unethical, I have more of a problem with the fact that society chooses to stigmatise sexuality. A picture of your dick or your pussy should be no more of a problem than a picture of your face. In a healthy community, this would be little more than a personal data protection matter.

Re:Sulfur

[binarylarry]

http://www.pbfcomics.com/271/

Re:Sulfur

[sumdumass]

He didn't make a religious argument. He asked if there was concern that there might be a hell. Of course as demonstrated by your answer, the answer is likely no.

But more importantly, even if the answer was yes, it doesn't preclude that kind of behavior. People sometimes ignore their beliefs in right or wrong or hell and do sick and evil things all the time.

I think this guy is just a moron eho doesn't understand the context or limits of principles involved here. He seems to have taken the principle of fair use to one extream knowing people would psy to avoid it. Then when he found out that there were limits, hes run to the opposite extreme.

Re:Sulfur

[Opportunist]

If there is, and if I was Satan, I'd be worried to be evicted when that guy croaks.

Re:Sulfur

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the real world, like it or not it is a problem for the victims. Come back in another century. Progress marches on.

Re:Sulfur

[michelcolman]

Or maybe in another century everything will be way more puritan than today. Throughout history, we've gone back and forth quite a lot when it comes to sexual openness.

Re:Sulfur

[Johnny Loves Linux]

Well said sir, well said!

Re:Sulfur

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the real world, like it or not it is a problem for the victims. Come back in another century. Progress marches on.

Progress is marching backwards. When I was a kid, you could find Playboy at the local grocery magazine rack. When I watch the morning news there is inevitably a half dozen "sex crime" stories. In the seventies, streaking was common and now it gets you put on a sex offender list. A friend of mine was arrested for taking a leak behind a bush walking home one night and was charged with sex assault because it was witnessed by a mother from her window who had her daughter with her. He ended up killing himself before he went to trial.

The people in charge are the sixties generation. WTF?????

Re:Sulfur

[pepty]

Tangential but relevant: You take a picture and send it to someone. Or write a letter and send it to someone. What conditions have to be met before there is a legal expectation of confidentiality for that someone? Written contract? Verbal contract? Can just having an intimate relationship create the contract? Can the nature of the picture/letter alone create that contract?

Can someone with a legal background connect the dots for me?

Re:Sulfur

[sumdumass]

Nothing requires anyone to belive in any religion with what the op said. It only requires someone to know the religion exists as he said might be real not that it is real or that anyone has to have any belief in it.

It is no more a religious argument than a scientific argument based around what happens after death. It is a statement about societal norms and expectations that references an expectation of three largest religions in the world that has shaped the society in which he lives in. The reference to hell is ancillary in this context. Might exist and hell as used is little more than an impression of consequences for actions. Hell can be swapped with Karma or viciously enraged murderous women just as easily.

Re:Sulfur

[Anonymous Coward]

It is generally well established that correspondence between two individuals is private and that for one of the parties to share that correspondence it is considered appropriate to ask the other for permission prior to sharing.

This is generally considered the norm and typically if you publish someones private material shared with you without their permission you would lose in the civil suit.

The problem is with the third party, not the recipient. If I give the material to a publishing company and they post it it is much harder to hold them liable for any breach as they were not involved in the original exchange. It's very similar to prosecuting someone for receipt of stolen goods. If they had no knowledge the goods were stolen then they are almost never held liable.

Re:Sulfur

[Austerity Empowers]

Blatant extortion. He's not trying to make the world better, he was trying to hold these people hostage for some bucks precisely because of our attitude about sex. If there is a hell, he belongs there.

Re:Sulfur

[theArtificial]

I periodically check the site, it's been awhile though, cool to see new additions. Thanks, I just spent more time than anticipated...

Re:Sulfur

[houghi]

Just assume there is no hell, where does he belong?

Re:Sulfur

[Bing Tsher E]

But.. but... but... I thought there was progress. Didn't the people in the 60's invent sex and in doing so trigger the sexual revolution?

Re:Sulfur

[FrozenGeek]

Hell does exist. It's modern name is Los Angeles.

Re:Sulfur

[pepty]

It is generally well established that correspondence between two individuals is private and that for one of the parties to share that correspondence it is considered appropriate to ask the other for permission prior to sharing.

Isn't that consideration based on the assumption that the individuals have a long term private relationship, something that would lead to an expectation of privacy? Letters to a casual acquaintance wouldn't fall under that rule, would they? How about selfies sent by someone being flirtatious with someone they don't know very well yet?

Re: Sulfur

[sumdumass]

He did_not_say hell existed. He said might exist. Go ahead and go back and read it. His exact words was

there might be a hell

As I said, this is as much a religious argument as it is a scientific argument. All it is doing is asking if someone is concerned there might be consequences for actions.

If he said this guy was going to hell, or hell has a special place for him or similar, I can agree with you. But he did not say that and words impart thoughts which we can understand by the use of the words involved and might does not in any way signify there is, it only acknowledges that some think there is.

Re:Sulfur

[drolli]

I mean i am tempted to see all of this as a contemporary art form - sueing for things which are somehow contradictory to another position of you. The dichtomy of the modern lawer-consulted brain repeating the same patterns (sueing) without context, over and over again has something of a provocation which could have come from Beuys.....

Re:Sulfur

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Are you not concerned about the anti-sexual religious morality police that create such an aura of shame and disgust around sex? While I have no doubt that what he was doing was unethical, I have more of a problem with the fact that society chooses to stigmatise sexuality. A picture of your dick or your pussy should be no more of a problem than a picture of your face. In a healthy community, this would be little more than a personal data protection matter.

I read the offence to be about posting the name and contact details and the images.

I guess it's hard for an anonymous coward to grasp the difference between that and "shame about sex" - or even "personal choice".

In a perfect world we could safely store our beer on the front porch and walk anywhere, any time, without attracting unwanted attention - but the world ain't perfect. e.g. I don't want to see you waddling around with your micro dick exposed - could cause eye damage. When you have a "right" to wander the streets naked I hope I retain the "right" to find you repulsive and smack you on the pee pee but good. Until then - have you heard of nudist farms?

Oh wait... you don't have "right" to show your pimply arse in public, or have sex with dogs. What a morally uptight, context blind world we live in.

Re:Sulfur

[Barsteward]

thats down to religion which hopefully it will become a minority delusion during the next 100 years

Re:Sulfur

[Barsteward]

isn't using a computer a bit un-hippy-ish? :)

Re:Sulfur

[michelcolman]

Like it has in one of the most scientifically advanced countries on the planet, the US?

Chill, all

[Anna Merikin]

Don't get your panties all bunched up, the courts will see through this ruse.

Re:He's one smart cookie

[sumdumass]

Not really.

Despite there being more than one set of principles in law in play here, usually a voluntary settlement includes some sort of admission of guilt which could prevent any appeals without showing some form of durress outside the penalties of law being faced. Its really difficult to win an appeal or even have an appeal heard when it involves a settlement.

OH THE IRONING

[Anonymous Coward]

#karma

The law makes no allowances for irony.

[hey!]

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.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[BarbaraHudson]

Only the creator - the person who took the photo - owns copyright to it, unless there has been a transfer of copyright executed. So, whoever took his picture has copyright to it, unless it was a work for hire for him. On a side note, I doubt he's got all the paperwork for each of those photos he posted.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[__aaltlg1547]

He might well own the images that were attached to stories about him. But there is still fair use to consider.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case what he as doing was legal in the firs place. If someone else takes pictures of a naked woman with their permission, then the person that took the pictures has copyright and can do as they please with those pictures. In the case of revenge porn that would mean transferring the copyright to someone else.

So which is it? Either revenge porn is illegal because people, including this man, have a right to control their image or pictures are the sole property of those that created it and revenge porn is as legal as posting pictures of this jackass in the paper.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[taustin]

You're confusing copyright with privacy rights, which are very, very different. He's a newsworthy figure. They were not. He chose to be newsworthy. They did not. He's not in the same position as the women he extorted.

Frankly, the guy belongs in prison for extortion.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[hey!]

Copyright is not necessarily the only law which applies here. It is possible, for example, to have copyright on works you have no right to distribute. If I write a libelous story about you, I *own* that story, but I can't publish it because it is libelous -- unless I alter the story so you aren't obviously recognizable.

IANAL, but I suspect that what matters here is the subject's "expectation of privacy". Even if you got her permission to take her photo with the understanding it's for your *personal* use, she probably has a reasonable expectation that you won't post it on a public website. In that case after a breakup you would retain copyright and the right to use the image for your personal use (although really how pathetic is that?), but you don't suddenly gain the right to share it with the world if that's not the terms under which she agreed to let you take her picture.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[KingOfBLASH]

Not completely true. There's a reason if you do a photo shoot with a model you ask them for a model release (right to use their image). Not every image is copyright to the photographer. And I have quite a few citations.

Of course, whether or not you need a release is a complex issue, but if you don't want lawyers sorting it out the best is to err on the side of caution.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[wiredlogic]

He's not a public figure as his only exposure is through media reporting on his activities. He is, however, a topic of newsworthy reporting and an image is part of that reporting.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[BarbaraHudson]

if you do a photo shoot with a model you ask them for a model release (right to use their image)

You still own the copyright of the image. How you can use it is another matter. THAT is why you get a release. You have the right to limit copies to just the one you have - the model cannot say "hey, I like that picture of me - I want it to sell to a magazine." She would need a waiver from you, or, better yet, a copyright assignment.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[hey!]

It's well established that a person may become an "involuntary public figure" -- someone who does not intentionally thrust himself into the public sphere, but whose actions (or inactions) a reasonable person would expect to draw public scrutiny.

So the question is whether becoming a "revenge-porn" impressario is something a reasonable person would expect to draw public scrutiny. You be the judge.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[avgjoe62]

What you are looking for here is a model release, which lays out exactly what can and cannot be done with a picture taken in private. From the wiki article above:

No release is required for publication, as news, of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public place. In general, no release is required for publication of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public space unless the use is for trade or direct commercial use, which is defined as promoting a product, service, or idea.[1] Publication of a photo of an identifiable person, even if taken when the person is in a public place, for commercial use, without a model release signed by that person, can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.[2]

Note that no model release is needed for the act of taking the photograph. Rather, if needed, the model release applies to the publication of the photograph. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. The photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but usually licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release because he is merely present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives him more opportunity to license the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it. Nevertheless, unless a photo is actually published, no model release is required.

Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them, commercially or not. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[radarskiy]

"Either revenge porn is illegal because people, including this man, have a right to control their image or pictures are the sole property of those that created it and revenge porn is as legal as posting pictures of this jackass in the paper."

Irrelevant, since the complaint was not about revenge porn per se. The FTC went after him for "unfair business practices", i.e. he was using the images for extortion.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[KingOfBLASH]

Check the first link. It's that monkey picture the court ruled wasn't copyright to the photog.

There are other examples too. Try posting a picture of a famous landmark and you might get a DMCA takedown notice.

Or just go watch an NFL game and listen to the ridiculous warning about how even thinking about the game is copyright the NFL.

Copyright is very hard to explain these days. In some places there's broad over reach, and it's quite hard to determine what you can and can't take pictures of, and what you can legally do with those pictures.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[BarbaraHudson]

If you remember, the monkey couldn't claim copyright because monkeys have no standing to claim copyright.

As for getting a DMCA takedown notice, I've been threatened a couple of times in the past, and basically told them to go pee up a rope. DMCA only works in the US :-)

As for the NFL, who cares? Not me, that's for sure. But the NFL's over-broad copyright claims have not been upheld by the courts.

Re: The law makes no allowances for irony.

[Corbets]

It's not a hard concept - there are multiple legal issues in place, e.g. Privacy and Copyright. I know IT types like to think of the world as a binary place, but it's not and never will be.

Re:The law makes no allowances for irony.

[james_gnz]

The photographer does hold the copyright to the photograph, but copyright isn't a right to make copies of the photograph, it's a right to prevent people from making copies of the photograph. People other than the photographer may hold other rights that also preclude making copies of the photograph (but that doesn't mean they're allowed to make copies of the photograph either).

Your first link is very different from the other two. In the first case, the guy who owned the camera initially claimed he was not the photographer--specifically that a monkey picked up his camera and took the photo itself. (The photo became a bit of a sensation on this basis, but when it came to light that you don't get copyright just by owning a camera, the guy changed his story, and instead claimed he had got the shot ready, and just let the monkey push the button.) In this case, the question is about who (or what) the photographer was, and therefore who (if anyone) holds copyright (since monkeys can't hold copyright). In this case, it is questionable whether the guy who owned the camera holds copyright, and therefore whether he can preclude others from making copies.

The other two links don't relate to disputes about who the photographer is, and therefore don't relate to disputes about who holds copyright. In these cases, it is not in question that the photographer can preclude people from making copies. What is in question is whether other people hold other rights that also preclude the photographer from making copies.

Confusing summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Using witch in a derogatory way.....

[m.shenhav]

....is highly offensive to us magi.

Re:Using witch in a derogatory way.....

[rubycodez]

You follow the teachings of Zoroaster? He didn't do magic. He would be down on witches and witchcraft too.

Re:In the US

[MightyMartian]

Agreed. Everyone should know your real name, your address and the fact that you rape kittens. No limits to speech I say!

Re:In the US

[ceoyoyo]

No limits to freedom of speech! The hit I put out on Anonymous Coward is clearly covered.

Re:In the US

[JimMcc]

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.

Re:This time

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! The 1st amendment belongs to everybody! "Revenge porn" is a bullshit pretext for censorship. Fuck them! We need better circumvention tools to protect ourselves. Somebody, please help us!

Speaking of tools, remember all those tools you loaned me a few months back? Well, I've decided to terminate our relationship and give them all away to random strangers.

What's that, your personal property, I need permission from you? Tough. If you didn't want them given away you shouldn't have let me borrow them.

Re:This time

[BarbaraHudson]

Get real. If a woman had been running the revenge porn site, it wouldn't have changed anything. Blackmail is blackmail. Extortion is extortion. None of the media have posted nude pictures of him and said "Give me $500 and we'll take them down."

Re:This time

[BarbaraHudson]

Who says the the judge who gets to preside over his trial, and the prosecutor who presents the case, aren't going to be women?

At the very least, you know there are going to be at least a few women on the jury.

Re:This time

[Noah Haders]

So you're saying that this guys scam should be legal and we should have illegal tools for balance. Brilliant, Clarence Darrow!

Why bring that up ?

[aepervius]

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.

Re:Why bring that up ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with sex being shameful or not, and everything to do with consent and revenge.

The very same thing can be said about the public use of a private citizen's name. You can't even argue that the public has a need to know the name. Explaining the situation is sufficient to inform anyone to the degree they needed to be informed (if in fact they actually needed to be informed, which is massively doubtful.)

It's not that he was right to expose those ladies; it's that anyone who non-consensually exposes the private details of anyone else is just as dead certain to be wrong, and that includes the news media and the government. If punishment is to be applied, then that's the role of the justice system. If it is reliably determined that the individual can never be trusted again, then obviously, the system should not free them. The current ostracization and shaming climate for freed citizens is toxic in every aspect and effect it has.

Once you really understand the process, you realize that the non-consensual dissemination of private information - including identity - to the general public is the precise equivalent to the most vile form of back-fence gossip. There are no actual benefits (stoking hysteria aside), and the downside for the exposed person(s) can range from loss of employment and even death at the hands of vigilantes and stalkers.

Society will not be worthy unless it manages to work around to honoring privacy more than it does prurient and bullying behavior.

Re:Why bring that up ?

[BitZtream]

The solution to his problem is simple. How much is he willing to pay to get this information take down.

Treat others the way you want to be treated and all that. Give him a good dose of his own medicine, except make the cost high enough that he can't pay it, cause lets face it, no one should actually take it down, ever.

Re:Why bring that up ?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Your argument might make sense except that the perp in this case has been found guilty, and the crime he is guilty of was operating a business that traded off making peoples private pics public; essentially blackmailing them. His name is public however because it is in the public interest.

The thing I find strange/funny is that he must surely have learned a bit about what can and can't be made public whilst trying to defend himself, and yet... he hasn't, has he?

So on top of being a social low-life parasite, he's a stupid social low-life parasite. Double whammy!

Re:Why bring that up ?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

His name is public however because it is in the public interest.

I'd like you to back this up with reason, please. The justice system has its hooks in here. Punishment is in their dominion, not yours or mine. So. Exactly how does it benefit the public to further drag his name, address, family, future etc., through the mud?

Someone is found guilty of a crime, it's in the public interest to be aware of this. The justice system in (in theory) operating on behalf of society. So the news media report such things.

I'm struggling to understand why you feel this is wrong. Is there a circumstance (other than this one) where it would make sense to keep the identity of a guilty party secret?

Re:Why bring that up ?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Yeah I'm bored now! If you like, you can take that as a "win". Now you've just got to convince everyone else, and you've changed the world.

I have a question.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Looking for a Ruling or Education

[redelm]

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.

I hope they roast his nuts on a spit...

[Kazoo the Clown]

If you thought it was hard to convice a girlfriend to pose for naked photos before, this asshole just made it impossible.

Re:I hope they roast his nuts on a spit...

[radarskiy]

This is why we can't photograph nice things.

Re:This time

[BarbaraHudson]

The women would probably not be as harsh as the men, some who would see themselves acting as "White Knights". He'd be (marginally) better of with an all-woman jury.

He's trolling and you fell for it

[Wrath0fb0b]

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.

Re:GG proof reading your autocorrect.

[rubycodez]

Don't get your knickers in a tryst, you're trying to make a temptress in a tea cup. Hold your whoresons all ready.

Karma

[Locke2005]

Yep, Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

Extortion bad, sex good.

[MichaelMacDonald]

I don't have a problem until you get to the extortion part.

This guy actually wants to be famous

[RuffMasterD]

I found a fairly in-depth interview with this guy where he admits he actually wants to be famous. Check this out:

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.