Khloe Kardashian Streisands A Photo She Wanted Taken Down By Issuing Takedowns
from the far-and-wide dept
The Kardashians are no strangers to Techdirt's pages. Being comprised of family members who are by and large famous for being famous, the Kardashians have been notorious for a heavy-handed approach to policing their own images, often times through spurious claims on intellectual property or publicity rights. So, heading into this story, it should be noted that the default posture of this particular family tends to be the use of IP claims to police anything to do with the family's image on the internet.
But, as readers of this site will recognize, often times these policing attempts have the opposite of the intended effect. This certainly seems to be the case with Khloe Kardashian's recent attempts to rid the internet world of a un-touched photo of her poolside.
The alleged leaked photo pictured Kardashian smiling in a swimsuit. Many previously criticized Kardashian on social media for her attempts to remove it online after it was leaked, suggesting she was contributing to body image issues by hiding the unfiltered photo. In her post, Kardashian said she thought the leaked photo of herself was "beautiful" but she is entitled to want it removed.
"When someone takes a photo of you that isn’t flattering in bad lighting or doesn’t capture your body the way it is after working so hard to get it to this point, you should have every right to ask for it to not be shared - regardless of who you are," she wrote.
That... isn't how copyright law actually works, though. And it was copyright Khloe's team used to issue takedown requests to all kinds of sites, including Reddit and Twitter. According to her team, the photo was shot at a Kardashian residence and was "accidentally uploaded" to the internet by "an assistant." Left unsaid are some important details when it comes to the copyright question. Some reports indicate that the takedown notices were issued by Khloe's grandmother, who reportedly took the photo. When the family assistant uploaded it on accident, it was done so without authorization. A mistake. But once that was done, it's unclear how sharing the post via retweets and social media somehow is a copyright violation subject to a DMCA notice.
But that isn't really the point of this post. Instead, this is a story of a classic Streisand Effect in action. Due in large part to the efforts to disappear the photo, it's now in much wider circulation on the internet, including in posts from news organizations where any takedown request made by the Kardashians would run straight into the First Amendment. And so now the photo Khloe wanted disappeared is all over the place.
After circulating for about two days, the image is likely experiencing the Streisand Effect, where the effort to suppress information — a story, a video or a picture — only amplifies it further.
Now, I am not including the photo in question here for multiple reasons. First, I don't need it to get the point of the post across. Second, in recent comments, Khloe has indicated that part of the reason for her wanting the photo gone is that she has struggled with body image issues in her life and I have enough respect for that to not want to add to it.
But that's kind of the point, right? Other media sources are showing the photo as part of the news coverage of all of this, which is the exact opposite reality that Khloe was attempting to achieve with the aggressive takedowns of the photo elsewhere. Sometimes, it seems, it's a better strategy to simply let a story die rather than amplify it by trying to kill it.
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: dmca, khloe kardashian, streisand effect, takedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They've already been posting memes about it on Reddit for days. It's never going down the memory hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind that this is the genius family whose most famous figurehead, Kim, wants to be a lawyer. Let that sink in.
One can't help but wonder if she's going to take over the kind of role Mary K. Schulz used to have for Malibu Media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deliberate?
Did it ever occur to you that this very media savvy family deliberately Streisanded the photo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate?
yup, there's no such thing as Bad Publicity in show business.
That family is worth billion$ -- they cry all the way to the bank when supposed bad media coverage pops up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deliberate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Photo I've Seen
How sad. She's young and beautiful. It's one of the most flattering photos of her.
Not everyone is a fan of the typical celebrity look; too much makeup, plastic surgery and phony photoshop. It's so over the top it has an uncanny valley vibe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best Photo I've Seen
WAS young and beautiful. FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh, so many things happen "by accident" (or, maybe not).
(What do you call it when someone does something on purpose, then claims it was done by accident, really just to get more PR... a "fake Streisand effect" if you will?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time to coin a new term "the Kardashian effect" .. when the Streisanding for publicity rather than anything else.
Fake.. that just about sums up the entire Kardashian clan anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attentionwhoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What do you call it when someone does something on purpose, then claims it was done by accident, really just to get more PR... a "fake Streisand effect" if you will?"
A deliberate streisand.
The streisand effect only means that the more you call out about how you want something gone from public view, the more that something will end up viewed by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Key word: "ask"
It's OK to want things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key word: "ask"
You can ask but since you do not own the copyright there is very little you can do. Paparazzi exist because of this point of ownership. Within broad limits (like not trespassing) they can take a photo of a celebrity and post/sell it in the US and there is very little the celebrity can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is 100% fake. The photo was uploaded directly by "an assistant" which is her PR team. This was pre-arranged to generate publicity, with the plan to be her 'requesting' a takedown to generate more publicity for stuff she wants to sell.
I just wish you could sue for false DMCA takedown requests when you KNOW 100% you planned this with your team of PR advisors months in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I twistedly interpreted this to mean that AC wants someone to sue him/herself for abusing the DMCA process. But I'll bet that AC actually meant to say "I just wish that you could be sued for false DMCA notices....."
In point of fact, a false filer can be sued, but the law is written to automatically give that filer a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. "Good faith effort" and all that jizz-jazz works a treat for DMCA abusers, effectively neutering the intent of that section of the law. Thanks, Congressional Hollywood lovers. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And with her family has worked hard to create the same issue for many women. They are part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F this whole family
Why are people still making this family famous and rich? This entire grifter family has contributed NOTHING positive to humanity. NOTHING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you going to do about it besides complain about how other people don’t think and act exactly like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"famous for being famous..."
"famous for being famous..." and for churning the publicity for endless attention, and monetizing it every way they can. What have -any- of the Kardashians actually accomplished, ever, except for enriching themselves by merchandising a gross glitzy kind of faux-upper-crust version of wealth and glamour. This worship of the kind of no-achievements rich, who then take crass advantage of their admirers for money culminated in the Cult of Trump. It all makes me want to scream "Get a real life, people" -- and stop wasting your life with 'the Kardashians' and their fake manufactured glamour, and their fake manufactured controversies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I asked above: What are you going to do about it besides complain about how other people don’t think and act exactly like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We knew Stone was a weird fuckin' guy with some odd sexual proclivities and disturbing hobbies, but now he's white knighting the Kardashian pigs? Off the deep end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "famous for being famous..."
Complaining about the Kardashians is just as pointless as watching them.
Just stop paying attention. Scroll past news about them (this particular article I read specifically as it was another example of the Streisand effect, personally). If someone talks about them to you, react with indifference rather than anger.
In other words, take your own advice to heart: stop wasting your life caring about the Kardashians and the people who care about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm....?
"Khloe Kardashian"
Who? And, much more importantly, why should I care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm....?
Oh, right. And I suppose you just clicked on this by accident did you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummmm....?
Khloe, is that really you???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]