Post Semi-Nude Photos Of Celebs Doing Drugs... Get Hit With C&D That You Can't Show Anyone
from the that's-not-how-it-works... dept
Rose M. Welch points us to the news that the website TheDirty.com was sent a ridiculous cease and desist letter from lawyers representing Tess Taylor (apparently some reality TV personality whom I'd never heard of), after the site posted photos (warning: NSFW) of Taylor topless and partaking of various drugs (apparently both pot and black tar heroin).Of course, these days you half assume that such stories are planted on purpose to build up the reputations of various desperate b- or c-list celebs. And, of course, claiming that the cease-and-desist is covered by copyright almost guarantees that it will get more attention. This is somewhat standard language on many cease-and-desist letters, but it's unlikely that there is any legal basis for it. There is little creative effort in the cease and desist, which is mostly boilerplate. It's difficult to see much copyright being allowed. Even if there was (and anyone want to bet on whether or not the letter was registered?) it would appear that fair use would allow the publication of the letter, despite the claims that:
This letter is a confidential legal communication and is not for publication. Any publication, dissemination or broadcast of any portion of this letter will construe a breach of confidence and a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act.Good luck testing that one in court. First of all, even if the letter really was covered by copyright, fair use would almost certainly protect the publication of the whole thing (for the sake of reporting), if not "portions" of it. And the claim of "breach of confidence" is a huge stretch as well. That's usually applied to things like doctor-patient relationships. Arguing that the lawyers for Tess Taylor and the site TheDirty.com have any sort of "confidential" relationship established is beyond ridiculous.
As for the reasoning behind the C&D... that seems to come from similarly questionable legal theory. The lawyers rely on California's "rights of privacy and publicity," but the law in question there was written to protect celebrities from having their images used in advertisements for endorsement purposes. It's a stretch to suggest those same rights apply simply to "photos you don't like... because they're published on a for-profit site." Again, it seems just as likely that the whole ordeal was cooked up for publicity anyway, but it's still annoying to see various laws abused in this manner -- whether the letter represents a real legal threat or is just part of a publicity campaign.
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: cease and desist, copyright, publicity rights, tess taylor
Companies: thedirty.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm not complaining but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if we could see that it was marijuana, she's in California and she may be using it legally.
Although I agree that there is a double standard, I don't think it's being shown here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice try, but FAIL
2. She has a better chance at defamation of character by means of libel (published, but even then that probably wouldn't hold since she is some form of a public figure (not a private individual) and there is no actual malice. I mean the pictures are real, they aren't photo-shopped.
3. Copyright on a legal letter? The Copyright act was created to protect forms of expression, which includes literary works. They could duke it out and argue if a legal letter is a "literary work." Whew, sticky subject. Fairuse is definitely the backbone of that one, just claim news reporting or criticism of material and don't publish it in it's entirety.
My question goes beyond the communication and media law I have learned and into the gritty: what is defined as a legal letter and what "rights" does the letter, author and recipient have based on the definition as defined by the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice try, but FAIL
> by means of libel (published, but even then that
> probably wouldn't hold since she is some form of
> a public figure (not a private individual) and
> there is no actual malice. I mean the pictures
> are real, they aren't photo-shopped.
Since, as you say, the pictures are real, she has no chance at libel. Truth is the ultimate defense to an accusation of libel/defamation. If the photos are real, the case ends there. No libel as a matter of law. They won't even reach the public figure/actual malice analysis. That only comes into play if the speech in question is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heroin ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Formula
Microsoft has it's most valuable IP out there, for the pickings, and they barely make an effort to stem the flow.
These sorts of stories are actually getting dull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it was "have" then it would have to be "have to."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once Again The Claim that One Party Can Restrict the Freedom of Another
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Semi Nude Photos!
Those photos have hardly any clothes on!
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prohibition sucks
If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history.
If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol, but not quite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gh
=================================================
Best Pharmacy Drugs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agencies who look for celebritie photos on the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]