Is It McDonald's Responsibility To Stop Nude Photos From Getting Online?
from the questions,-questions,-questions dept
I originally saw this story Sunday night, about a guy suing McDonald's over naked photos of his wife showing up online after he accidentally left his phone (which contained the photos) at a McDonald's. I didn't write anything up because, while the story is attention-getting, there didn't seem to be much to say about it. However, we've had more people submitting it than just about any story I've ever seen -- so apparently folks think it's worth discussing here.One point raised by numerous submitters is the question of liability. The guy is suing McDonald's specifically, along with various employees from the franchise where he left his phone. However, it's unclear why this should be McDonald's responsibility specifically. If the guy had left the phone on a bus, would it have been the bus company's liability? It seems like yet another example of something I've referred to as a Steve Dallas lawsuit, named after the character in the old comic strip Bloom County, who once suggested that a paparazzi photographer who was beat up by a celebrity (I think it was Sean Penn in the comic strip) sue camera-maker Nikon, since that was the company with the most money -- despite it not really being involved. The same thing seems to be at work here. The guy is suing McDonald's for $3 million.
Yes, I'm quite sure it sucks to have discovered his wife's naked photos online, and I'm sure it was embarrassing. But, isn't part of the problem the guy's own fault for (a) not protecting the content on his phone and (b) forgetting the phone in the first place? Shouldn't he take some responsibility for his actions, rather than suing a company that basically had nothing to do with the issue (other than being the place where the guy carelessly lost his phone) for $3 million?
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
Filed Under: liability, nude photos, responsibility, steve dallas
Companies: mcdonalds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there may be more to this..
Again, there is a lack of details here, but given the posting and subsequent harassment of the couple, this smells like there was something personal here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there may be more to this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there may be more to this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTFA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFA
IF McDonald's encouraged this behavior, then yes they should be responsible otherwise, the individual that did it is the responsible party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"He says staff promised to secure the phone until he could retrieve it."
Wow, that puts a different spin on this don't you think? Mike, why didn't you mention this in your summary?
While I think $3M is a bit ridiculous considering it was the guy's fault for forgetting his phone, if he can show that the pictures were pulled off the phone AFTER the staff took possession of it, then I think he has a case for some damages. But I'm not sure how he could do that - seems possible that whoever found the phone might have copied them before turning it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either way his wife should talk to him about looking at porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think 3m is inane. He should get his phone back and try and be less of an ass in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the are-we-greedy-or-what department...
Regardless, how do we know the guy did not upload the photos himself and then blame McDonald's (we all remember the finger in the chili)? If the incident actually happened, I can see the potential for personal liability (i.e., the employee or employees that claimed they would safeguard the cell phone), but where does McDonald's liability come in? Oh, I forgot. They have money, their average employee does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the are-we-greedy-or-what department...
There are ways to track people's actions online including, but not limited to, figuring out who uploaded a specific image, at what time and from what IP address they were posting from. With that type of info they can build a timeline for when the guy lost the phone, when it was reported lost, when they called the guy the first time stating they had found it, when the employee sent the text message to the guy's wife, etc.
Now that you know this, tell everyone else who asks that way we don't have to pull the crayons out for everyone else too..
DickMe's is responsible because companies are responsible for the actions of their employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the are-we-greedy-or-what department...
figuring out who uploaded a specific image, at what time and from what IP address they were posting from. With that type of info they can build a timeline for when the guy lost the phone, when it was reported lost, when they called the guy the first time stating they had found it, when the employee sent the text message to the guy's wife, etc.
That whole post is worthless blathering, as you cannot link a person to an IP address, but nice try. Also think about it. If they were sending the pics from the phone of the owner, according to your post, the husband is guilty of all of this. It was most likely sent From His Own Phone. I'm sure most of the others who read here have figured this out. But your comment is pretty silly. Perhaps you should take a job at the RIAA, they seem convinced of the same evidence you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the are-we-greedy-or-what department...
It will be interesting to find out just where the pictures were uploaded from. Would it not be humorous to discover they were uploaded from the phone?
Yes, I know there are ways of tracking when and where stuff was uploaded. There are also ways around that tracking as well. I have to believe that whoever uploaded this stuff was smart enough to do it in a way that could not be traced back to them. If they did the upload from a McDonald's computer, they are in violation of company policy.
Keep your crayons where they belong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the are-we-greedy-or-what department...
You're one of those who thinks that blame should be put anywhere other than where it makes sense.
Sue the guy who did it. I don't care where he worked at the time he broke the law. McDonalds didn't break the law. The employee did. If he had done it in the past and was caught, then fine, blame Mickey Ds, however, there's no reasonable way you can place blame on MD for this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..... David
Why oh why could I not get called for this jury!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://fleshbot.com/5098026/lost-cameraphone-leads-to-leaked-porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming he can do that, I think McDonald's will have a tough time disclaiming responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Lovin' It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm Lovin' It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm Lovin' It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm Lovin' It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$3M for.. Get this...
[I believe the Rimshot sound would play here.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a the newest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To #3: I don't think that makes the case legit at all. Even if one of McD's employees took the phone and uploaded the pictures, how is that their responsiblity? It is rediculous that everytime an employee does something on their own people sue the company. McDonald's didn't do anything.
If this guy wins then everyone might as well start leaving their cellphones everywhere and just hope someone uploads the pictures to the web. Heck, maybe I will take some pictures and go over to Starbucks right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is also an accepted legal argument that simply authorizing someone to put your name on their building does not make the corporation liable for everything that occurs within the franchise. If that was the case, Physician's Associates, Inc. would be sued over and over for incidents at Subway restaurant. Franchise agreements specifically indemnify the corporation against legal actions of this kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really, So, if I murder my wife I should do it while on the clock ? Or rob a bank ? I think it gets down to personal responsibility of our own actions. I have a smart phone with Tons of data in it. Want to know how I avoid situations such as these ? There are no nude pics on my phone, I lock it with a code, and I take it with me WHEREVER I go. The owner violated rule 3.
I also present the argument that some patron might have enjoyed their Big Mac while forwarding the pics and comments and then turned it in to the manager. Perhaps he paid cash for his meal, and now where is that persons identity? Examine it closely and there is only one way the finger should point. Back at the owner of the phone. I may lose a lottery ticket one day, if my numbers hit, whom should I sue ? Silly really, how petty we've become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be honest, this guy finds his pictures online somewhere? Seems like a huge coincidence to me, unless he knew where to look beforehand. Seems like a setup to me. This guy probably left his phone on purpose, even dialing the McDonalds to tell them to keep it safe somewhere. In the meantime he also uploaded the pictures of his wife and then picked up his phone again. Honestly, how many people would know whom to call when you lose your phone somewhere?
This guy is gambling, hoping McDonalds will pay him a huge amount just to avoid a lawsuit and bad publicity. He'll probably succeed too. And when that happens, more people will likely "forget" their phones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Lonnie
More broadly, yes, the couple should take some responsibility for their actions. However, our society gives people the right to sue for redress when they believe they have been harmed, and if - as many other posters have pointed out - McDonald's employees were involved while on the job then McDonald's itself could be liable. If Mr. Masnick wants to eliminate or restrict the ability to sue for a genuine harm, I'd like to hear how he plans to do that without precluding cases that even he might regard as legitimate. "Deregulate everything and let the courts [also part of the government] sort it out" is an ill-thought-out strategy at best, but when combined with "forbid any lawsuits I personally regard as frivolous" then it's downright immoral. "Might makes right" is the only alternative left, which might be fine with Mr. Masnick but certainly is not fine with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Lonnie
More broadly, yes, the couple should take some responsibility for their actions. However, our society gives people the right to sue for redress when they believe they have been harmed, and if - as many other posters have pointed out - McDonald's employees were involved while on the job then McDonald's itself could be liable. If Mr. Masnick wants to eliminate or restrict the ability to sue for a genuine harm, I'd like to hear how he plans to do that without precluding cases that even he might regard as legitimate. "Deregulate everything and let the courts [also part of the government] sort it out" is an ill-thought-out strategy at best, but when combined with "forbid any lawsuits I personally regard as frivolous" then it's downright immoral. "Might makes right" is the only alternative left, which might be fine with Mr. Masnick but certainly is not fine with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For Lonnie
The problem I have is the "genuine harm" part. The guy left his cell phone at McDonald's. Is this McDonald's fault? I also have to wonder how anyone would ever find those kinds of pictures on a cell phone, unless the backdrop showed his wife au naturale. This whole thing stinks of setup and stupidity. The harm should be to McDonald's because they are a family restaurant. They should sue the guy for leaving pornographic materials in a place where they might be exposed to children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For Lonnie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For Lonnie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloom County Verification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should have realized he was missing something and gone back the moment he entered his car. Did he not check his pockets when entering the car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excuses to look at porn....
Hey baby loved your pics on boinkmybrainsout.com! Call me for a good time @ 555-1567!
Or somthing like that. This seems to be a genuine case against the franchise owner, but I still dont see how McDonalds corporate could be responsible since they aren't the actual employer of the perpetrator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excuses to look at porn....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excuses to look at porn....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McDonald's employees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not so fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, then you have the ability to lift the prints of whomever used the phone, which can and will inevitably lead back to the person who sent them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For that matter, it's not entirely clear that leaving the phone at the McDonald's is when the pics were made available. A co-worker could've uploaded them when he left the phone at his desk as he went to the bathroom once. The guy could be prone to leaving his cell phone behind on a frequent basis.
I think his case will hinge on proving that the pics were uploaded during the time the phone was in the store's custody, and that the pics were uploaded from the phone (and not the theoretical malicious co-worker uploading them to his home account first, and then uploading them to the porn site later).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubly stupid, this guy
Oh, I know, MONEY. Rather than working harder and trying to make a better buck for himself and the missus, he'd rather capitalize on the objectification of his wife, by further objectifying her in a lawsuit, and with the added bonus of covering up for his own stupidity. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubly stupid, this guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubly stupid, this guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubly stupid, this guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
If the perpetrators weren't teens, then he would have a case against them. But against the establishment where the crime occurred? Good luck buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he wins...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove MC DEE did it
MCdee has NO liability here.
Just f'n ridiculus !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyfries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeeze...
But like everyone has said. Details are not being included here.
1) Did someone turn in the phone to the staff.
2) How long was the phone left out in a public place where it could be handled.
3) Did it have a memory card in it with the pictures stored on that
4) Does the phone, now have a memory card in it.
5) Were the pictures stored on the internal memory of the phone
6) 16 year olds work at McDonalds and rotate through like gum drops.
Just too many things are missing for us to feel for the guy or blame McDonalds for the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mastercard..........
Taking naked pics and sending them to husband $0.10
Husband leaving camera in a McD and somebody copying and posting pics online......... worthless!
...... actually about -$1,000,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Sherman won't be able to prevail on the specifics of this case, but people seem to be saying that he shouldn't bring suit at all. Why not? What objective, generally applicable standard would you apply that would preclude this case but not (for example) one involving upskirt cameras under the tables? After all, that's the risk they took when they sat down, right? Nope, sorry. There are legal standards for reasonable expectation of privacy. It is the job of courts, not random people on the internet, to determine how statute and precedent defining those standards apply to a particular case. Access to that process is an essential right, and no right should be taken lightly just because it's occasionally abused.
As for you, eleete, please look up the distinction between criminal and civil law. That should make it clear why your murder/robbery examples are irrelevant. As for personal responsibility, you might consider whether a self-inflicted harm absolves everyone else of any responsibility for things they do to increase that harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"it is accepted legal precedent that a company is responsible for employee actions any time the employee is working or representing the company."
Above is the quote that I was responding too, and included in my own, but thanks for reading. I'm well aware of the differences between the two. As for your final point, what should the harm of exposing said pictures be ? In US$ that is. I'm quite curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looks to me more like a case of "who do I blame for my stupidity"? If someone flashes a nekkid picture of their wife in public and someone takes a photograph and posts it on a web site, is it the fault of whereever that person was that it happened?
I agree that a little fact finding is in order, but to sue McDonald's or anyone else without having some basic information is an invitation to having the suit dismissed. I hope it is dismissed because it will serve this guy right. It is one thing to fart in the middle of a Wal-Mart, it is another to announce to the entire store that the fart by the individual in the blue-striped shirt by the name of John Smith should be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the city for providing a road you can use to buy porn
F'ing people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How he found out about the pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero Accountability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
half the
Most online uploaders take the persons IP addy from which the photos are uploaded from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you people too thick to notice the line at the bottom of the paragraph that says "(google.com, thumbnail star via Ask Jolene)"??? Click the "thumbnail star" link and it takes you to a page with five other photos of that MODEL, who is named Katja according to the filenames. The one verified photo of Tina Sherman in lingerie that accompanies some news stories (which can be found in about 10 seconds with a simple web search) shows her to be a brunette, while Katja is a blonde.
How do you people even manage to open a browser window, let alone find your way to a web site like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than likely the transfer was on his online logs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nude Pictures on phone at McDonalds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Streisand Effect Strikes Again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mcdonalds guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McDonald's
For those who are not familar with the laws that will decide the liability of the defendants in this case and do not have all the facts necessary to form an informed opinion or decision,it is a tort in the state of Arkansas to publicly disclose private facts about another, i.e. to publish on the internet nude photos of someone. Further, when the agent of a company, i.e. the manager of McDonald's, voluntarily agrees to take possession of personal property and assures the owner he will safe guard the same and turn it off, that creates a duty on the part of the company, throught its agent, to do what was promised. If that duty is breached by say; not turning the phone off, searching through it, posting photographs from it on a website that is frequented by pedophiles and has such images on it, along with the persons name, addresss and telephone number, so that other unsavory persons from all over the world can abuse the owner's family via lewd and threating telephone calls and text messages, and then from that very same telephone the agent sends such photos to family members of the owner; that is negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and a host of other civil claims that are also torts in the State of Arkansas.
It is from these acts and failure to do what was promised that creates the liability as alleged by the Plaintiffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mc Donald's
1) Every transaction we make is logged by our service providers.
2) If he called the manager this is logged.
3) The manager as an employee of Mc Donald's accepted responsibility for the phone making MC Donald's libel for any damages.
4) If the image was sent prior to his pick up of the phone and after the communication with the Mc Donald's manager then Mc Donald's is Libel.
If the transfer happened prior to the Manager taking responsibility for the phone or after the phones pick-up from McDonalds then that is another issue entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]