Cameron Diaz Can Tell People What Not To Link To?
from the seems-like-they're-going-a-bit-too-far... dept
Time for another thorny legal question concerning this wonderful thing we know as hypertext and the web. Apparently, there's some video out there of well-known actress Cameron Diaz that she doesn't want people seeing (something involving stuff she did when she was young and would rather the world didn't know about). Last year, she got an injunction against the person who was selling the video, saying that he was banned from "disseminating, distributing, publishing, broadcasting or otherwise displaying the photos and/or video." Fairly standard stuff. However, the injunction went one step further, claiming, that the ruling applied to "all others having knowledge or notice of this order." So, along comes Nick Denton's set of bloggers, where the folks at Fleshbot, Defamer and Gawker all had a field day with the fact that this video existed, and proceeded to link to a site that sold the video, as well as posting a screen shot from the video. This quickly resulted in a fairly nasty cease and desist letter from Ms. Diaz' lawyers -- even though they did not host or sell the video themselves. At first glance, this looks like a question about linking, and whether or not a judge can set up an injunction banning anyone (who knows about the injunction) from linking to a website. As has been discussed many times before, any ban on linking is ridiculous. The site doing the linking isn't hosting anything, but just pointing. However, what isn't getting as much coverage is the fact that the sites posted screenshots, which could fall under "otherwise displaying the photos" described in the injunction. At this point, it becomes a journalism question. Can people be barred from posting an image for journalistic reasons? The story of the video is now news, and the Gawker sites reported on it as news. Thus, it seems completely fair to include an image. Also, take it one step further. What if, instead of hosting the image themselves, they simply pulled it directly off another site? That's the same thing as linking, basically. Even more importantly, though, an awful lot of people (such as myself) who otherwise never would have known (or, frankly, cared) about what Ms. Diaz did a decade ago now know. Like Barbara Streisand before her, it looks like Ms. Diaz is getting a quick lesson in how the internet works: if you try to ban something or take it down, it's very likely that it will only get much, much more attention.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too late
Though for the life of me I don't know why I looked. She's way too skinny.
And dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
This is an attempt at a scandal to raise the media image of Diaz pure and simple. The more they talk about it...the more we see her in the media.
It was the same with Paris Hilton who doesn't even have the "talent" (word use debatable) that Diaz has...she was fading...what happens? Paris Hilton sextapes get released on the net, she milks the scandal and the outrage for all its worth and parlays it into interviews, series etc etc.
While its more conceivable that the Paris Hilton IS the real deal and a legitimate scandal...It looks to me that the Diaz stuff was orchestrated to have the same effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
personal reputation management
Obviously, once a person becomes celebrity, they enter the public domain (in a way). However, I think it is going to be increasingly important that we have the right to control our reputation online. Otherwise, you have to tell college students not to actually speak their mind because they will never live it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: personal reputation management
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: personal reputation management
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: personal reputation management
You're monkeys are gonna be very pleased, she's an absolute honey in the vid =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]