Jake Gyllenhaal Threatening Websites For 'Defamation By Photoshop'?
from the that-won't-end-well... dept
And here we go again. Apparently a few websites had posted some photos that allegedly showed actor Jake Gyllenhaal stretching in his underwear. Supposedly, the image is faked. However, that hasn't stopped Gyllenhaal's lawyers from trying a somewhat novel approach to it, demanding websites take it down, because the image (among other things) could be seen as defamation:Thankfully, it appears that some sites aren't backing down, with at least one noting that the takedown itself now makes the photo newsworthy: "We're keeping the photo up, since it hasn't been proven fake and because their letter bumped it from 'funny and cute' to 'actually newsworthy.'" That site, Queerty, also explains why this isn't defamation:
Oh, really? Defaming him? Well, we don't like defaming anyone. You might even say that we are gays and lesbians allied against defamation.I wonder if these claims of "defamation by photoshop" will start to become more common. Perhaps it would be good to get some court rulings on the books that show this is a ridiculous claim.
But what exactly is the defamation here? Is is that people might think, wrongly, that Jake wears underpants? Or that his reputation is sullied by the idea that he allowed someone to photograph him without pants on? Or that he stayed in what looks like a cheap motel?
Simply calling something defamation doesn't make it so, as Howard Stern learned in 2009 when he tried -- and failed -- to sue someone for suggesting that he's gay. Is that what's going on here?
Jake's a public figure, and we can talk about him if we want to. We can even speculate about what he looks like in his underwear. We can't -- and won’t -- claim that this picture of him is definitely authentic, since we just don't know.
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: defamation, jake gyllenhaal, photoshop
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://i-beta.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/3/1/7/52317.jpg?v=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Marcus is 100% correct, if he and his legal team were upset before that one will cause an aneurysm, or five.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Marcus Carab on May 25th, 2011 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Marcus Carab on May 25th, 2011 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Marcus Carab on May 25th, 2011 @ 12:02pm
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_188_awful-romantic-comedies-theyll-probably-make-nex t_p2/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrm?
I had no idea who Jake Gylleraeouparudladj was until this, so "no publicity is bad publicity?" perhaps?
Or maybe "making Streisand work for you?"
Or maybe, "Courts are now a publicity tool."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hrm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrm?
But frankly I am disappointed in all of you for not watching donnie darko -_-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed. Before I read this "story" I had no opinion of Jake Gyllenhaal. (Mostly because I had never heard of him before.) Now that I have read this "story" I'm convinced he's a whiny douche-bag. In my subjective and utterly uninformed opinion, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi I represent Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette Feldman Schenkman and Goodman, LLP we have found your comment to be defamation and.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$0 damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $0 damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the fact that the pic is obviously fake and Queerty (amongst others) are portraying it as REAL. That's why it is defamation.
If the websites were smart enough to post the pic with the caption, "Funny, but more than likely fake, pic of Jake Gyllenhaal" or simply mentioned somewhere in the article that the pic could be fake then defamation wouldn't be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's so obviously fake, no one will believe it says anything about Jake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're lawyers, they should know better. Dumb lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back done broke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back done broke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back done broke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back done broke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Back done broke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Back done broke!
I'm pretty sure if Germany had successfully discovered a method for making nuclear bombs, this would be a much different world. Hitler was far more obsessed with the V II rocket program. I don't think the Germans were bothering with the bomb much towards the end of the war. That's what I've read at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do you have to be represented by a lawfirm with as many names in the title as you have zeroes on your bank balance?
If so I think Doug will continue to represent me just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My body is 100% real!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess Jake can't take a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celeb Fakes are ubiquitous on the net
If Jake has a problem with The underwear image, he better not do an uncensored search on Google Images for ["Jake Gyllenhaal" fakes] NOTE: THIS SEARCH IS NSFW !!!
For a run down on some legal situations with Fake images, with Potential Claims and also the Defences available [the summary is best read at end] this page by Walters Law Group on Celeb Fake Legality is great
Alternatively a nice listing of legal cases throughout the years can be found via the Fake Detective (A fake exposing site) and lists cases brought by the likes of Dustin Hoffman, Barbie, Jennifer Aniston, Alyssa Milano, Sophia Loren, Milton Berle, Tiger Woods, Madonna, Anna Kournikova, Cameron Diaz, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard K Stern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Howard K Stern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talking out your ass
Also, they posted it because it makes him look gay -- but then they get all offended by the possibility that Jake Gyllenhaal took legal action because the pic made him look gay.
Just another case of sleazy tabloid losers trying to play the victim when they were in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake Gyllenhaal underwear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jake Gyllenhaal underwear
Two: Those pics were done with the approval of Jake Gyllenhaal and his publicist.
The claim JG is making does not revolve around him not wanting people to see him in his underwear. It revolves around the fact that these websites are circulating a pic of him that is fake and claiming that it is real. Sometimes these websites need to be reminded that they can't do whatever they feel like doing just to get more hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False light....
What's potentially eye-rolling here is that Gyllenhaal is a public figure and this is probably defensible as satire of a public figure. Digital caricature, if you will. If a cartoonist drew it, there wouldn't be much of a case. So, that's how I'd view it.
Everyday people SHOULD want this kind of publication to be actionable when a non-public figure is targeted. For instance, when your neighbor who hates you decides to shop your face onto porn stills and circulate them in the neighborhood, or some such....
False light is an ancient tort for a good reason. People have been behaving badly in this way for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]