Model Suing Apple Over Stolen iPhoto Pictures

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]The_Trutherizer[/nom]If she get's paid then would that not be tantamount to her being a underage porn vendor? Hmmm People should teach their children better.[/citation]


yet another art tard that doesnt real or paya tention to the full article, it never siad she was nude in the photos it enver said these were porn , also read my ofirst post

 

[gh0st]

Sounds like a bf,ex bf or herself gave up the photos.Someone stole them from her computer but she don't know who ? LOL
Very intelligent way to get free marketing and make a boatlaod of cash without being a some bigtime model

 

[Jarmo]

Color me amazed if cases like this aren't covered in that big huge pile of a contract developers have to sign in order to get into app store. This'll land squarely and painfully into the developers lap, not Apples.

But it's a smart move to sue Apple while you're at it, guarantees media attention.
As an aspiring model seeking publicity, the girl's already won. Good job!

Million is a nice round figure, but this'll never be in court, will be settled for much less.

 

[Jarmo]

PS. Words "Nude" or "porn" didn't appear in the article. They appeared in your heads when looking at the picture. Shame on you for lusting after the underage hot sexy babe.

 

[Tattysnuc]

If someone uses a picture of someone without first checking that they can use that picture, let alone it being of a "sexy minor" (not to be confused with a sexy miner ) then they deserve to have their arse sued off them. Remember that the pictures are being used for commercial gain here, so why shouldn;t she get her cut of the pie.

If she wants to take pictures of herself, then that's up to her. If she has those pictures stolen, then that's tough luck. If someone then uses thsoe pictures to sell an app, without paying for a model shoot themselves, then that's them cutting costs, so go for it girl!

 

[techd2]

"Battino says the pictures were stolen from her computer but refused to discuss who might have stolen them or how they may have gone about it."

Sounds like someone trying to make a name for themselves, her ex probably stole them and she suing a big company just to get her porn carrier started.

 

[TemjinGold]

Hey Jane, looks like you'll need to ahh... settle this nude/not nude debate by ahh... showing us the rest of the pictures... 😀

 

[Hatecrime69]

wah, wah, wah...she fails to realize that when it's on the net, it's no longer yours, even if it's you

 

[jitpublisher]

Oh my god, I just noticed my brother accidentally and totally unbeknownst to me without my permission or consent in any way posted my racy 16 year old pictures of myself on his Facebook page. Will someone please download them and start using them without my consent so I can sue you for a zillion dollars?

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]jitpublisher[/nom]Oh my god, I just noticed my brother accidentally and totally unbeknownst to me without my permission or consent in any way posted my racy 16 year old pictures of myself on his Facebook page. Will someone please download them and start using them without my consent so I can sue you for a zillion dollars?[/citation]
1) Read the T&C for Facebook
2) This girl didn't have them posted on a website where 500 million people can see them, they were on her hard drive and then stolen.
3) We will be the judge of your pictures being racy
4) If they are racy and your own brother is looking at these pictures you have WAY bigger problems

 

[Guest]

The US requires a model release for all stock images and part of the standard release is that the shots won't bring the model into disrepute. Considering the title of the app I sure you can argue quite successfully that they have.

 

[Minus_i7]

I think Tom's forum needs to have some sort of time restriction on article comments. Say, the article page must be viewed by a user for 2 minutes before that user can leave a comment. If people are forced to be idle for a little bit they might actually be inclined to read the article instead of clicking on a headline and jumping straight to the comments section with their knee-jerk indignation.

 

[zilnicra]

[citation][nom]garyshome[/nom]Lawyers have to eat too.[/citation]

true, but not 3 lobster dinners a day while they drive to and from the different resturants in their S63.....

 

[grieve]

I think in this case this girl deserves to be paid... why should anyone make money off images if her.
imagine if someone walked up to you took your pic and created an App... (ugliest people) and you were the cover person without your permission. If the app took off you should be paid for the use of your ugly mug!

 

[dustcrusher]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]yet another art tard that doesnt real or paya tention to the full article, it never siad she was nude in the photos it enver said these were porn , also read my ofirst post[/citation]If "art tard" is the same as "art dork" I can assure you that he is not "one of us." We art dorks would fully support her right to sue for either removal, compensation for the use of her image, or both.

If Samba doesn't have a contract or waiver they can show the court, she wins. The only question is "will she settle first?" If Samba is smart, they'll offer her a deal for royalties owed plus a new contract where she and they can make more money.

 

[tburns1]

Do we know what the picture is? Nude? Or is that the picture, as seen above?

 

[sandmanwn]

[citation][nom]Daris[/nom]The US requires a model release for all stock images and part of the standard release is that the shots won't bring the model into disrepute. Considering the title of the app I sure you can argue quite successfully that they have.[/citation]
She wasn't working for them. They were stolen pictures. RTFA!!!

 

[Khimera2000]

[citation][nom]alyoshka[/nom]Apples is going to stop the distribution of that App from it's store..... Compensation is going to be minimal...... cos the app isn't going to show such a big lot of users...[/citation]

ever heard of receipts? while your logic will work for the rating of the program, all any investigater has to do is scapena the records in which case it will show the month to month profit all the way up to the date of the lawsuit.

 

[old_newbie]

[citation][nom]Jarmo[/nom]PS. Words "Nude" or "porn" didn't appear in the article. They appeared in your heads when looking at the picture. Shame on you for lusting after the underage hot sexy babe.[/citation]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]yet another art tard that doesnt real or paya tention to the full article, it never siad she was nude in the photos it enver said these were porn , also read my ofirst post[/citation]

"Nude" or "Porn" did not appear in the article, but the words "eXtreme Cam Girls" did appear(notice that the X is capital) and that was where the her picture was used, according to the article. Whether nude or not, using a pic of a minor on an adult site is illegal. There is probably a disclaimer on the site that says that all models used are of legal age, too.

 

[CptTripps]

[citation][nom]Daris[/nom]The US requires a model release for all stock images and part of the standard release is that the shots won't bring the model into disrepute. Considering the title of the app I sure you can argue quite successfully that they have.[/citation]

Agreed, the fact that they used her pic on an app call "extreme cam girls" just lends more to her case.