Erin Andrews Trying To Takedown Nude Images Using Copyright She 'Bought'

from the handing-over-the-copyright dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent over the news that famed ESPN sports commentator Erin Andrews' lawyers have threatened the website TheDirty.com for posting still images from the surreptitiously shot video of Andrews naked in her hotel room. As you may recall, last year, a video that was secretly filmed of Andrews via some sort of spy camera made it to the internet. As we noted at the time, while it was incredibly illegal to create the video, it's almost certainly not illegal to watch it -- though, it does make you kind of a creep and a jerk. But... is it illegal to show the video... or still images from the video? There's probably a publicity rights claim that Andrews could use to stop such things, but in the latest threat (which TMZ got its hands on), Andrews' lawyer appears to be threatening a copyright claim, stating (among other things), "the copyright of these images belong exclusively to Ms. Andrews."

That seemed a bit odd, and the submitter suggested this was a misuse of a copyright claim. As horrible as the video is, the copyright would belong to the miscreant creep who took the video -- who's now serving 30 months in jail. But, since the guy was caught, tried and sentenced to jail... it made me wonder if maybe, somehow, as a part of that, Andrews was given the copyright. And... indeed, according to one report when the guy was sentenced, it's stated that "she paid Barrett a nominal fee to gain copyright ownership of her nude videos," and it notes (as has happened) that she planned to use the copyright to try to pull the videos and images offline. Of course, apparently the site in question didn't give in and simply reposted the images after they got the threat letter, so the next question is whether or not she'll actually sue the site.

Filed Under: copyright, erin andrews, takedowns

Erin Andrews Nude Video Means We Should Regulate The Internet?

from the please-explain dept

In talking yesterday about the legality of viewing the "spy camera" footage of sportscaster Erin Andrews in her hotel room, someone pointed out in the comments that some journalists are now claiming that this shows why the internet needs to be regulated. Wait, what? How? Why? Creating the video was already illegal. What kind of regulation is needed here and how would it actually change anything? It seems that any time something "bad" happens some people suddenly jump up and insist "their oughta be a law!" without actually thinking through what that actually means.

Meanwhile, some others have noticed that this video apparently has been online for many months, and no one paid any attention at all to it until ESPN made a big deal out of it. Now, you can understand ESPN's general position, but it makes you wonder if there wasn't a better way to handle this that could have involved tracking down who was responsible without putting out a big press release and kicking off all this interest in the video. It's almost as if (perish the thought!), ESPN is actually trying to exploit this situation (and Andrews) to draw more attention to itself...

Filed Under: erin andrews, regulations, video
Companies: espn

Is It A Crime To Watch The Naked Erin Andrews Video? No, But It Makes You A Total Jerk

from the didn't-stop-the-NY-Post dept

You may have heard that some miscreant somehow surreptitiously filmed well-known ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews naked in her hotel room using some sort of pinhole spy camera installed the room. Obviously, this was incredibly illegal (apparently, the suspicion is that it was an insider at ESPN who knew which room she was in) and hopefully the person/people responsible are caught and punished. However, CitMediaLaw points out that some legal analysts are apparently claiming that it's criminal just to watch the video. But, that's not true. It makes you a terrible person, but it's not illegal. After talking about how a talking head legal analyst on CBS claimed it was illegal to watch the video, Carlos Miller checked in with a First Amendment lawyer who balanced the questions clearly:

According to Photography is Not a Crime's legal analyst Marc Randazza (yes, I have a few, so take that, CBS), Bloom is talking out of her ass.

"That CBS analyst needs more legal education and less melodrama," the Florida First Amendment attorney said in an email responding to my question.

He also added that although it is completely legal to download and view the video, he didn't have much respect for anybody who would.

"Anyone who does download it is kind of an asshole," he said. "She did have an expectation of privacy. We live in a society where the sleazes and the lowest common denominator individuals seem to thrive. If we dried up their mud flats, they would die off.

"What I mean by that is that downloading the video is legal. but doing so is a douchebag move. I certainly won't be downloading it (although I personally would love to see her naked too)."

As if to prove the point, apparently, the NY Post posted still images from the video -- and ESPN has responded by banning NY Post writers from ESPN. The Post didn't break the law, but that doesn't make it any less evil a move.

Filed Under: crime, erin andrews, video