Advertisement: Do more with photos, movies and music on your Mac. Upgrade to the new iLife ’11 for just $49 at the Apple Online Store.
“Aspiring model Rebecca Battino’s career got off to a strange start when sexy self-portraits she took as a 16-year-old popped up in an online iTunes application called ‘eXtreme Cam Girls,'” Boniello reports. “Unbeknownst to her, the images soon spread like a virus to dozens of flesh sites across the Web, making her an international sex sensation.”
Boniello reports, “Battino, now 19, took the pictures of herself in the mirror with a digital camera. The steamy shots were swiped from her computer, Battino claims in a $1 million Manhattan federal-court lawsuit that accuses Apple and app-maker Samba Studios of copyright infringement.”
“The application has since been removed from the iTunes store, but Battino is fuming that she hasn’t gotten any credit — or cash — for the shots,” Boniello reports. “‘I was just upset that I’m not being paid for my pictures,’ she told The Post. ‘I’m not embarrassed.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Get this girl a patent attorney. She will get a faster settlement!
“If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages.” —ChrissyOne
Damages? Do you make a habit of quoting “the law” without using your brain?
“If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages.” —ChrissyOne
Damages? Do you make a habit of quoting “the law” without using your brain?
Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?
A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.
Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?
A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Is there anything else you need help with?
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Is there anything else you need help with?
She is hot.. pic of her face here:
http://goo.gl/Pcwm
She is hot.. pic of her face here:
http://goo.gl/Pcwm
@ChrissyOne:
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ChrissyOne:
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ alansky
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ alansky
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
She is clutching at straws if she thinks Apple is responsible for her infamy. Isn’t an ex-boyfriend more likely to be the one who uploaded the photos to the internet?
She is clutching at straws if she thinks Apple is responsible for her infamy. Isn’t an ex-boyfriend more likely to be the one who uploaded the photos to the internet?
Screw you very much MDN. You know where you can take your crappy ad infested website run from your parents basement.
You Appel Fanboys
Screw you very much MDN. You know where you can take your crappy ad infested website run from your parents basement.
You Appel Fanboys
@ChrissyOne:
I rest my case.
@ChrissyOne:
I rest my case.
What, that you can post stupid crap? Hey, me too!
What, that you can post stupid crap? Hey, me too!
@ C1
In the recent past I was taking a few pictures at a public event. It was like a science fair where the kids’ parents had to sign a release for them to participate; the release included a “publicity photo” disclaimer. After we posted the photos on the web, an angry parent (who apparently didn’t read the form before signing it) sent us a very unfriendly, emotional, rude “take down” order. The lawyers said the signed permission didn’t matter. We took the shots down.
As stupid as RB may sound, she does own the copyright; the company can’t use her images without permission. And she was a minor when they were taken — making this a much more stringent requirement for requiring permissions.
@ C1
In the recent past I was taking a few pictures at a public event. It was like a science fair where the kids’ parents had to sign a release for them to participate; the release included a “publicity photo” disclaimer. After we posted the photos on the web, an angry parent (who apparently didn’t read the form before signing it) sent us a very unfriendly, emotional, rude “take down” order. The lawyers said the signed permission didn’t matter. We took the shots down.
As stupid as RB may sound, she does own the copyright; the company can’t use her images without permission. And she was a minor when they were taken — making this a much more stringent requirement for requiring permissions.
@ Hm…
All very correct. And in your case, of course, no money was at stake.
So then, Battino has a three-fold case:
1. She was the photographer, and as a content creator, she has automatic copyright to her image. No entity may use her image for commercial purposes without her release of rights.
2. She was the model, and as such, must be released in order for the image to be sold for commercial purposes.
3. She was a minor, granting her extra protection under child exploitation laws.
Unless the software developer can produce *both* evidence of a contractual release of rights of her creative work, *and* a model release, *AND* the signature of a parent or guardian, I’m afraid Battino wins her case.
Apple could be found responsible depending on their developer agreement, just as a book publisher could be found responsible for plagiarism in one of their writer’s works, depending, I guess, on how they’re contractually protected and indemnified.
@ Hm…
All very correct. And in your case, of course, no money was at stake.
So then, Battino has a three-fold case:
1. She was the photographer, and as a content creator, she has automatic copyright to her image. No entity may use her image for commercial purposes without her release of rights.
2. She was the model, and as such, must be released in order for the image to be sold for commercial purposes.
3. She was a minor, granting her extra protection under child exploitation laws.
Unless the software developer can produce *both* evidence of a contractual release of rights of her creative work, *and* a model release, *AND* the signature of a parent or guardian, I’m afraid Battino wins her case.
Apple could be found responsible depending on their developer agreement, just as a book publisher could be found responsible for plagiarism in one of their writer’s works, depending, I guess, on how they’re contractually protected and indemnified.