Good for them. It must be hellish knowing there are sick freaks out there leering at their daughters decapitated corpse.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233143
Quote
At Long Last, A Small Justice
When grisly images of their daughter's death went viral on the Web, the Catsouras family fought back. Two years later, a court rules in their favor.
By Jessica Bennett | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 5, 2010
They say losing a child is the worst thing a parent can endure. But for Christos and Lesli Catsouras, whose 18-year-old daughter, Nikki, was killed in a devastating car crash in 2006, there was something much, much worse. Two weeks after their daughter's death, on Halloween day, Christos got a phone call from a friend. "Have you seen the photos?" he asked, hesitantly. Nine color close-ups of Nikki's mangled remains, still strapped into her father's crushed car, had been circulating around town by e-mail. Within days, the images went viral, popping up on hundreds of sites. Now a California court has handed the family an important legal victory.
Nikki's parents found out about the accident, which took place on a toll road near their Orange County, Calif., home, just moments after it happened. But they were forbidden by the coroner from identifying their daughter's body—it was simply too terrible for a parent to see. So you can imagine their horror when, a few days later, Nikki's mother came across the images as she searched for an article about the crash. Soon after, Christos opened an e-mail he thought was from his office that had the images pasted into the body of the text. "Woohoo Daddy!" the message read. "Hey Daddy, I'm still alive." They discovered a fake MySpace page set up in Nikki's name, where commenters proclaimed she "deserved it," and the images posted on sadistic blogs devoted to pornography and death. In the worst of the photos, Nikki's nearly severed head is shown through the shattered window of her father's Porsche.
The Catsouras family hired a lawyer, Keith Bremer, and a tech company called Reputation Defender, which works to remove malicious content from the Web. Together, they determined that the photos had come from two dispatchers with the California Highway Patrol: 19-year-veteran Thomas O'Donnell, who still works at the agency, and Aaron Reich, who quit soon after the incident. The dispatchers had allegedly e-mailed the photos, while on duty, to relatives and friends—in an attempt, their lawyers have said, to warn others of the dangers of the road. "It was a cautionary tale," Jon Schlueter, Reich's attorney, told NEWSWEEK last year. Nikki had been driving at close to 100 mph when she clipped another vehicle, tumbled over the median and across three lanes, smashing into a concrete toll booth and landing upside down. The other driver walked away from the accident unharmed.
The Catsouras family, of course, didn't see the aftermath of their daughter's story as a tale of caution—and they sued the CHP for negligence, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm, among other charges. But in March 2008, their suit was dismissed after a trial judge ruled that the dispatchers' conduct, though "utterly reprehensible," hadn't violated the law. "It's an unfortunate situation, and our heart goes out to the family," R. Rex Parris, the attorney representing O'Donnell, has told NEWSWEEK. "But this is America, and there's a freedom of information."
Nearly two years later, a California appeals court has made clear that freedom of information is not the only issue at hand. On Jan. 29, it issued a unanimous opinion reversing the superior court's ruling, paving the way for a jury trial (or perhaps more likely, say legal experts, an out-of-court settlement between the Catsouras family and the CHP). In its 64-page published opinion,the three-justice court panel chastised the dispatchers' behavior as "morally deficient," stating that they'd violated the family's right to privacy and caused them emotional distress for the mere purpose of "vulgar spectacle." They continued: "It was perfectly foreseeable that the public dissemination, via the Internet, of...the decapitated remains of a teenage girl would cause devastating trauma to the [family.]"
It's a big victory for a family that has waited, for years now, for some semblance of justice. The Catsouras family has had to take out a second mortgage on their home to cover the cost of their legal fees. They've forbidden their daughters from using social-networking sites like MySpace, and took two of Nikki's younger sisters out of school, for fear the adolescent rumor mill would be too much. Their second-oldest daughter, Christiana, is now a junior at the local high school, but memories of her sister pop up when she least expects it: last year, a firefighter came to her class to lecture on driver safety. Not knowing Christiana was in the classroom, he mentioned Nikki, and Christiana fled the room crying, petrified he would show the images, which seem never to go away. Google still delivers 148,000 results for "Catsouras," and there are multiple Web sites devoted solely to the awful photos. "It's the simple things you never expect," says Christos. "We live in fear of the pictures. And our kids will never Google their name without the risk of seeing them."
A spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol told NEWSWEEK that the agency cannot comment on pending litigation but that "the CHP feel(s) for (the Catsouras family's) tragic loss." She also says the agency has initiated "corrective measures" for the action of the employees, and updated its photo-handling policy. "The CHP is a professional law enforcement agency and demands its employees conduct themselves appropriately at all times," the agency said in a statement. "As it did in this instance, the Department takes allegations of misconduct seriously."
Nevertheless, the challenge remains: what can the Catsouras family do about the remaining photos, ever present on the Web? Many of the bloggers who post such images are anonymous, and it's impossible, on a legal level, to hold every Web host accountable for the speech of each individual user. Moreover, posting damaging pictures may be traumatic, but it's not libelous—which means it's hard to bring legal action. One tactic, says privacy-law expert Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University, would be for the family to prove in court that the photos were not obtained via public record and were not of legitimate concern to the public. Another, says Michael Fertik of Reputation Defender, would be for the CHP to copyright the images, so that anyone who posts them would be liable for infringement. But perhaps most likely, says the family's lawyer, would be for the CHP to cooperate with the family and give them ownership of the images, which would allow them go after anybody who was posting them without permission. "It's going to be hard to get them off the net," says Solove, author of The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. "But it's not impossible."
Bremer, the family's lawyer, says it's likely the CHP will appeal this latest decision with the California Supreme Court—but he's confident that his clients will prevail. And though no legal action will bring their daughter back, Lesli and Christos Catsouras take solace in the fact that the seemingly endless nightmare they've had to endure may finally be over. "In a perfect world, I would push a button and delete every one of the images," says Lesli. "But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else." For the moment, it's the best possible outcome to any parent's worst nightmare.
© 2010
Pretty funny to see you posting a thread about censorship, and then attempting to redact your own post. You're such a knob sometimes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2010, 01:25:55 AM
Pretty funny to see you posting a thread about censorship, and then attempting to redact your own post. You're such a knob sometimes.
That was just a quirk in Newsweek's formatting. I fixed it.
If we are not allowed to make fun of victims of tragic accidents and events, the terrorists have already won.
QuoteThe Catsouras family has had to take out a second mortgage on their home to cover the cost of their legal fees.
LOL what idiots.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg518.imageshack.us%2Fimg518%2F9884%2F17236mistakes1221080loso8.jpg&hash=b828c5bcc89af8f0f3c8c8307b7c77007fc9b4a4)
Someone should google the photos and replace.
Anyway, my thoughts go to the family. I know that in a couple of years they will be able to look back and laugh at this.
California Highway Patrol sucks.
It pains me that there is such a company as this reputation defender.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2010, 01:42:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2010, 01:25:55 AM
Pretty funny to see you posting a thread about censorship, and then attempting to redact your own post. You're such a knob sometimes.
That was just a quirk in Newsweek's formatting. I fixed it.
Still doesn't make you any less of a tard.
Quote from: The Brain on February 07, 2010, 04:54:51 AM
California Highway Patrol sucks.
Yes, it has gone downhill since Paunch and John left. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 03:45:58 AM
QuoteThe Catsouras family has had to take out a second mortgage on their home to cover the cost of their legal fees.
LOL what idiots.
Did you read the article? - they are about to receive a very large financial settlement for their trouble.
Fucking Lawyers.
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
Quote"But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else."
Is there coaching in law school to tell your clients to say crap like this? A settlement from California isn't going to stop a 19 year old from posting pictures from a crash.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 08, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
Before or after? :P
:mad:
She's dead, what does she care? and i don't know her family, nor will they read this, so it's all kosher :D
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Nikki_Catsouras
:showoff:
It would really suck to have your sisters pictures plastered all over the damn place.
I think at some point you are probably just better off biting the bullet and looking at them, try to de-sensitize yourself to them, since you are going to keep bumping into the damn things anyway.
Quote from: Fireblade on February 08, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Nikki_Catsouras
:showoff:
Not really an enviable job:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Nicole_Catsouras_is_Dead_Thank_God_05.jpg
(NSFW)
A friend of mine had to do that plenty of time for guys who threw themselves in front of a train while he was working on an ambulance till he couldn't take it anymore. He's an unemployed 45(?) year old WoWtard mooching off his parents' money now.
Also, her dad looks like a cheap pimp or drug dealer on Miami Vice.
Yes HVC but they might sue you. :(
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 02:36:56 PM
Yes HVC but they might sue you. :(
i was just asking for clarification :whistle: :P
Quote from: HVC on February 08, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
Before or after? :P
Well, she wouldn't have trouble giving head after, right?
I mean, you just have to pick it up off the pavement.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
I am ashamed to say that when I first read this thread, I immediately googled up the pictures to see what I had missed... :Embarrass:
She was...bloody...
It looked more like a crushed and pulped head to me, rather than a decapitated head. I am no expert however.
I am not ashamed. I had no desire to look at that.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2010, 03:19:01 PM
I am not ashamed. I had no desire to look at that.
Ditto. I am not following any links in this thread! :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2010, 03:11:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 08, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
Before or after? :P
Well, she wouldn't have trouble giving head after, right?
I mean, you just have to pick it up off the pavement.
But think of all the extra holes her head had.
ok, even that one made me feel bad :blush:
I forget which rule it is but Good god the internet really has a picture of everything.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 08, 2010, 04:21:24 PM
I forget which rule it is but Good god the internet really has a picture of everything.
Why would you capitalize "Good", but not "god"? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 04:54:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 08, 2010, 04:21:24 PM
I forget which rule it is but Good god the internet really has a picture of everything.
Why would you capitalize "Good", but not "god"? :huh:
No god worthy of the capitalization would allow Rule 34 to be invoked over this. ;)
Quote from: HVC on February 08, 2010, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2010, 03:11:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 08, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
Before or after? :P
Well, she wouldn't have trouble giving head after, right?
I mean, you just have to pick it up off the pavement.
But think of all the extra holes her head had.
ok, even that one made me feel bad :blush:
I can imagine.
After all, some of those holes would be rough and jagged, withn bits of bone and stuff. That
would feel pretty bad.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
was she HOTT? :ph34r:
Depends if the car caught on fire.
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2010, 05:15:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 04:54:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 08, 2010, 04:21:24 PM
I forget which rule it is but Good god the internet really has a picture of everything.
Why would you capitalize "Good", but not "god"? :huh:
No god worthy of the capitalization would allow Rule 34 to be invoked over this. ;)
This is a good answer, so I'm going with it. Yeah.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
Quote"But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else."
Is there coaching in law school to tell your clients to say crap like this? A settlement from California isn't going to stop a 19 year old from posting pictures from a crash.
It won't stop them, but it allows a quick remedy in court, where before this was not possible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2010, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
Quote"But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else."
Is there coaching in law school to tell your clients to say crap like this? A settlement from California isn't going to stop a 19 year old from posting pictures from a crash.
It won't stop them, but it allows a quick remedy in court, where before this was not possible.
:lmfao:
...
deep breath
...
:lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2010, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2010, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
Quote"But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else."
Is there coaching in law school to tell your clients to say crap like this? A settlement from California isn't going to stop a 19 year old from posting pictures from a crash.
It won't stop them, but it allows a quick remedy in court, where before this was not possible.
:lmfao:
...
deep breath
...
:lmfao:
Quicker than what these folks had to go through.
This is so fucked up on so many levels.
But while I can understand the family's position, there shouldn't be any restriction on posting stuff like that. If a local TV news crew had happened upon the scene of the accident, there'd be no doubt that they would be within their legal rights to broadcast footage showing her on their newscast (though the vast majority of news outlets would choose not to do so), and freedom of the press doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply only to professional journalists.
BTW, NBC apparantly broadcast footage of the fatal luge crash, including shots of the Georgian guy being futilely given CPR. By the logic of this decision, it would seem that his family should be able to successfully sue NBC.
Quote from: dps on February 13, 2010, 10:37:37 PM
BTW, NBC apparantly broadcast footage of the fatal luge crash, including shots of the Georgian guy being futilely given CPR. By the logic of this decision, it would seem that his family should be able to successfully sue NBC.
Sweet Jesus :(
I recommend Sontag's 'Regarding the Pain of Others' for thinking about this sort of stuff, it's provocative and well worth it.
Quote from: dps on February 13, 2010, 10:37:37 PM
BTW, NBC apparantly broadcast footage of the fatal luge crash, including shots of the Georgian guy being futilely given CPR. By the logic of this decision, it would seem that his family should be able to successfully sue NBC.
Yeah, that I made a point not to see that as well. Pictures of that Hamas guy on wheels that the Israelis blew away, fine with that. That fucker deserved it. This, not so much.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 12:07:22 AM
Quote from: dps on February 13, 2010, 10:37:37 PM
BTW, NBC apparantly broadcast footage of the fatal luge crash, including shots of the Georgian guy being futilely given CPR. By the logic of this decision, it would seem that his family should be able to successfully sue NBC.
Yeah, that I made a point not to see that as well. Pictures of that Hamas guy on wheels that the Israelis blew away, fine with that. That fucker deserved it. This, not so much.
Both are news, and therefore I think it's dangerous to allow legal restrictions on what can be distributed (whether via print media, broadcasts, or the internet). I have no problem with news organizations making a decision to not show them, and no particular desire to view them.
I agree, pretty much. I only saw the Hamas guy cause CdM posted it once. I admit I laughed.
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 12:35:07 AM
Both are news, and therefore I think it's dangerous to allow legal restrictions on what can be distributed (whether via print media, broadcasts, or the internet). I have no problem with news organizations making a decision to not show them, and no particular desire to view them.
But we have privacy laws. So, for example, Tiger Woods and John Edwards can keep their alleged sex tapes out of the gutter press. That you have that protection while mainstream channels are showing a not terribly famous sportsman dying strikes me as absurd and frankly disgusting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 11:48:34 AM
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 12:35:07 AM
Both are news, and therefore I think it's dangerous to allow legal restrictions on what can be distributed (whether via print media, broadcasts, or the internet). I have no problem with news organizations making a decision to not show them, and no particular desire to view them.
But we have privacy laws. So, for example, Tiger Woods and John Edwards can keep their alleged sex tapes out of the gutter press. That you have that protection while mainstream channels are showing a not terribly famous sportsman dying strikes me as absurd and frankly disgusting.
In balancing free speech and freedom on the press with privacy issues, in general the US comes down more in favor of free expression, while Europe comes down more in favor of a right to privacy. In the US, being able to keep sex tapes and the like off the internet is more about intellectual property rights than privacy.
In saying that the family of the dead luger could sue NBC by the logic used in the case of the girl killed in the car crash, I was exaggerating a bit, because one thing that US law does recognize is that there is more legitimate newsworthiness in stories about public figures than stories involving the average person. A random car accident victim and her family are going to have more protection of their privacy than a politician or a prominent athlete.
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 11:59:52 AM
In saying that the family of the dead luger could sue NBC by the logic used in the case of the girl killed in the car crash, I was exaggerating a bit, because one thing that US law does recognize is that there is more legitimate newsworthiness in stories about public figures than stories involving the average person. A random car accident victim and her family are going to have more protection of their privacy than a politician or a prominent athlete.
Who'd ever heard of the Georgian luger before he died? This guy wasn't prominent and that a news channel showed footage of him dying was ghoulish, nothing more. I mean it's really despicable in my opinion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:14:48 PM
Who'd ever heard of the Georgian luger before he died? This guy wasn't prominent and that a news channel showed footage of him dying was ghoulish, nothing more. I mean it's really despicable in my opinion.
He wasn't prominent before the Olympics, but the Olympics made him prominent, and thus news. At which point he was in the same position as Roland Ratzenberger at Imola. Who had several TV cameras pointed at his car as he lay their dead and medics worked on him.
It's not footage I particularly would want to see, but it is newsworthy.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 12:27:42 PM
It's not footage I particularly would want to see, but it is newsworthy.
But when I think it's him dying it's not his privacy that's being intruded on, but his family's.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:30:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 12:27:42 PM
It's not footage I particularly would want to see, but it is newsworthy.
But when I think it's him dying it's not his privacy that's being intruded on, but his family's.
It's difficult to argue a privacy right for the family when you have exposed yourself at a such a public event. Consider the Hillsborough footage that was broadcast at the time even in the absence of 24 hour news channels.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 12:36:41 PM
It's difficult to argue a privacy right for the family when you have exposed yourself at a such a public event. Consider the Hillsborough footage that was broadcast at the time even in the absence of 24 hour news channels.
I think there's a difference between monumental death - death en masse - and focusing on one individual, watching CPR try and fail while the camera in the helicopter hovers above. It's the difference, I suppose, between seeing the twin towers collapse and watching an individual who jumped out plummeting down. I find the latter far more difficult to deal with and unpleasant.
Similarly I suppose it's like getting footage of shells being fired into a city or bombs going off - you know that people are dying and that you're in effect seeing it but that's not the focus of the shot - that's not its purpose. The only purpose of filiming an individual dying is to watch one person dying.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2010, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
Quote"But it feels good knowing that at least now, at least in California, our case will (help) prevent this from happening to anybody else."
Is there coaching in law school to tell your clients to say crap like this? A settlement from California isn't going to stop a 19 year old from posting pictures from a crash.
It won't stop them, but it allows a quick remedy in court, where before this was not possible.
How is a financial settlement a remedy for this? Counseling--I agree. Cash? Not so much.
I think it is debatable whether a "news" footage can be given the same kind of protection as information as such. We have got used to equate a film or a picture with "news" but this is not necessarily the case (and, nb, for Americans, this is for obvious reasons not what your founding fathers were considering, when they were putting the freedom of speech protections into the constitution).
A film footage or a picture is often used to illustrate a story, and this is fine as long as the footage is non-controversial and noone involved directly protests, but if there is an opposition (due to privacy, protection of image etc.), this should really only kick in when there is a public interest associated with presenting the footage. This could be the case of, say, showing a footage as an evidence of some event that the person participating in it is denying, but I fail to see how this would apply to a situation like the Georgian athlete or the car crash victim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:44:10 PM
I think there's a difference between monumental death - death en masse - and focusing on one individual, watching CPR try and fail while the camera in the helicopter hovers above. It's the difference, I suppose, between seeing the twin towers collapse and watching an individual who jumped out plummeting down. I find the latter far more difficult to deal with and unpleasant.
Both of which were on the news, as I recall. The event overtakes the individual in this case. It is difficult to watch, but still a part of the story. And the overall story in this instance is the Olympics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:44:10 PM
Similarly I suppose it's like getting footage of shells being fired into a city or bombs going off - you know that people are dying and that you're in effect seeing it but that's not the focus of the shot - that's not its purpose. The only purpose of filiming an individual dying is to watch one person dying.
Dying is news. I don't see anything wrong with the camera hovering over the site of the biggest bit of Games news of the day. As I said, it's no different in essence to what has happened at other sporting events. And what would you have said if they had hovered over him, shown all the footage, and he had lived? Would you be equally disgusted?
What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:14:48 PM
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 11:59:52 AM
In saying that the family of the dead luger could sue NBC by the logic used in the case of the girl killed in the car crash, I was exaggerating a bit, because one thing that US law does recognize is that there is more legitimate newsworthiness in stories about public figures than stories involving the average person. A random car accident victim and her family are going to have more protection of their privacy than a politician or a prominent athlete.
Who'd ever heard of the Georgian luger before he died? This guy wasn't prominent and that a news channel showed footage of him dying was ghoulish, nothing more. I mean it's really despicable in my opinion.
True, but as Agelastus points out, it was the circumstances/venue of his death that made him (essentially) a public figure. An athlete dying at the Olympics is big news on an international level, whereas a teenage dying in a car crash is local news at best.
Also, what would have happened if the crash had occurred during competition, rather than in practice? There's a chance that the accident and its aftermath might have been broadcast live. At that point, there would have possibly been even more focus on attempts to revive him--you can't really expect NBC to realize instantly that there was no hope and cut away.
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 03:00:43 PM
Also, what would have happened if the crash had occurred during competition, rather than in practice? There's a chance that the accident and its aftermath might have been broadcast live. At that point, there would have possibly been even more focus on attempts to revive him--you can't really expect NBC to realize instantly that there was no hope and cut away.
This is a rather fallacious line of reasoning - only because sometimes we cannot avoid doing something by accident does not mean it's fine to do it deliberately. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2010, 03:00:43 PM
Also, what would have happened if the crash had occurred during competition, rather than in practice? There's a chance that the accident and its aftermath might have been broadcast live. At that point, there would have possibly been even more focus on attempts to revive him--you can't really expect NBC to realize instantly that there was no hope and cut away.
This is a rather fallacious line of reasoning - only because sometimes we cannot avoid doing something by accident does not mean it's fine to do it deliberately. :huh:
Well, that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that it is a legitimate news story.
And, just to be clear, I don't think NBC should have shown the footage. IMO, that was poor judgement on their part. But I'd rather that they have the freedom to make such judgements than have the government make tha call for them, even if they do get them wrong at times.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 01:07:39 PM
What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.
If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.
Question to Americans (especially lawyers and law students): does your law have the concept of "image protection", i.e. that a picture showing a person cannot be published without their consent (or that of their legal heirs, in case of a dead person) unless some of exceptions apply (e.g. a public figure, or a person in a picture is just a part of the crowd, rather than showed as an individual etc.)? We have this concept in Poland, and this would deal sufficiently with most of the cases of someone publishing a "death rattle" photo.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 01:07:39 PM
What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.
If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.
There is no such thing as "freedom of the press". There is only freedom of speech. If a newspaper or a tv programme could show a picture, any internet blogger or user should be allowed to do so as well (subject only to IP rights, of course).
In fact, broadcasting a picture on national television should be subject to bigger restrictions, privacy-wise, than just sending it in an email, because of the public impact. That's why many jurisdictions have a concept of "public interest" which for example precludes the media from publishing gossips from private life of the celebrities if no public interest can be showed, but do not prevent people gossiping about them in private, as long as they are true (see Max Moseley's case, for example).
We do in the US.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:54:52 AM
There is no such thing as "freedom of the press". There is only freedom of speech. If a newspaper or a tv programme could show a picture, any internet blogger or user should be allowed to do so as well (subject only to IP rights, of course).
In fact, broadcasting a picture on national television should be subject to bigger restrictions, privacy-wise, than just sending it in an email, because of the public impact. That's why many jurisdictions have a concept of "public interest" which for example precludes the media from publishing gossips from private life of the celebrities if no public interest can be showed, but do not prevent people gossiping about them in private, as long as they are true (see Max Moseley's case, for example).
He's talking about the US, not Poland. We're guaranteed freedom of and from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble (protest), and the right to "petition the government for redress" (limits sovereign immunity in court) in the first amendment.
I think for the image to qualify as a "freedom of the press" issue, the picture would need to be necessary to underscore the information that's being reported. A picture simply taken for shock value of an accident that was already well-reported probably doesn't qualify.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:54:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 01:07:39 PM
What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.
If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.
There is no such thing as "freedom of the press". There is only freedom of speech. If a newspaper or a tv programme could show a picture, any internet blogger or user should be allowed to do so as well (subject only to IP rights, of course).
In fact, broadcasting a picture on national television should be subject to bigger restrictions, privacy-wise, than just sending it in an email, because of the public impact. That's why many jurisdictions have a concept of "public interest" which for example precludes the media from publishing gossips from private life of the celebrities if no public interest can be showed, but do not prevent people gossiping about them in private, as long as they are true (see Max Moseley's case, for example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:50:53 AM
Question to Americans (especially lawyers and law students): does your law have the concept of "image protection", i.e. that a picture showing a person cannot be published without their consent (or that of their legal heirs, in case of a dead person) unless some of exceptions apply (e.g. a public figure, or a person in a picture is just a part of the crowd, rather than showed as an individual etc.)? We have this concept in Poland, and this would deal sufficiently with most of the cases of someone publishing a "death rattle" photo.
Not really. You can't use someone's image for commercial purposes, or charge people to see the it, without the consent of the person (or their heirs), but that doesn't cover posting it for free on the internet. Also, publishing it for news purposes is (and a few other things) are exceptions.
Maybe there is no freedom of the Press in Poland.
Question: If photos surfaced of Marty being beaten to an inch of his life by militant lesbian golfers would that violate any privacy laws.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2010, 09:31:46 AM
Maybe there is no freedom of the Press in Poland.
Question: If photos surfaced of Marty being beaten to an inch of his life by militant lesbian golfers would that violate any privacy laws.
Hott.
Well, I for one disagree that freedom of press should go further than freedom of speech. This essentially means granting corporate entities (such as media companies) more rights than enjoyed by individual people (not to mention makes these rights dependent on a nebulous concept of "press" which becomes more and more difficult to define in the information age).
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:50:53 AM
Question to Americans (especially lawyers and law students): does your law have the concept of "image protection", i.e. that a picture showing a person cannot be published without their consent (or that of their legal heirs, in case of a dead person) unless some of exceptions apply (e.g. a public figure, or a person in a picture is just a part of the crowd, rather than showed as an individual etc.)? We have this concept in Poland, and this would deal sufficiently with most of the cases of someone publishing a "death rattle" photo.
Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.
I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 01:07:39 PM
What the patrolmen did at this car accident though is disgusting. If a reporter had taken this footage and put it on the evening news, people might have been offended but a car crash is news, as anyone watching local television in Britain will know. Taking pictures for the titillation of your friends or anyone else who happens to see the images is something else again. And that is what the patrolmen did.
If agree, this decision doesn't seem to infringe on freedom of the press to me.
Quote from: Marty
Well, I for one disagree that freedom of press should go further than freedom of speech. This essentially means granting corporate entities (such as media companies) more rights than enjoyed by individual people (not to mention makes these rights dependent on a nebulous concept of "press" which becomes more and more difficult to define in the information age).
Well, I'd answer both of these comment by pointing out my previous contention that freedom of the press isn't just something that applies to professional journalists--it applies to all of us.
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2010, 03:44:04 PM
Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.
I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.
What about Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 R.C.S. 591 ?
bumped, because I am still curious about the Canadian cases above, which worried to no end my artistically inclined friends. Malthus, I believe you are working in IP (or at least, I know this is a strength of your firm), perhaps you know best what's the status of a photograph taken by an artist re: privacy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 23, 2010, 01:44:07 PM
bumped, because I am still curious about the Canadian cases above, which worried to no end my artistically inclined friends. Malthus, I believe you are working in IP (or at least, I know this is a strength of your firm), perhaps you know best what's the status of a photograph taken by an artist re: privacy.
My apologies - not really my area of law. I do more medical regulatory work. Though I'll look into it if you like; it is an interesting question.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2010, 02:18:46 PM
My apologies - not really my area of law. I do more medical regulatory work. Though I'll look into it if you like; it is an interesting question.
Only if you do it for free :P
But it is an interesting question and I would be curious to hear your thoughts (or those of any other) should you be curious enought to look at it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 15, 2010, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2010, 03:44:04 PM
Your example of a picture is problematic - ownership of the photo belongs to the photographer, and thus can be used however the photographer wants.
I believe there are restrictions on the use of the 'image' of a person (e.g. I couldn't make an animated movie or a computer game about a recently deceased person without the consent of the estate), but not on specific photographs or pieces of video.
What about Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 R.C.S. 591 ?
Link for the curious:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html
The case revolves entirely on the Quebec Charter of Rights, which guarantees:
Quote4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.
5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.
There are no similar provisions in the Canadian Charter, and I don't believe any other province has such an expansive Charter of Rights. As such the ruling would seem to be very much limited to Quebec.
I of course stand to be corrected as this is outside of my area of expertise.