What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
191 Comments
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -2/+184Wait a minute...
We have pix...
...but it DIDN'T happen? - telair, on 10/11/2007, -3/+168Original Picture
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=eb25e1ef9cdee9b1ba5f8ea209da7d47
DVD Cover
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=6f5b3a977753b1711ba0dc12fc7ba332 - unicronband, on 10/11/2007, -3/+141It should be illegal for using the phrase "There's no Hocus Pocus in these Passions". That doesn't even make sense, even in Pornospeak.
- rrasco, on 10/11/2007, -7/+118isn't that illegal in more than one way? she is underage.
- thecosmicpope, on 10/11/2007, -10/+112Fantastic photo, however if I was her parents I'd be taking them to court for that one. Having there underage daughter on the front of a porn movie, theft of the photo and then thinking stopping making it will make it all better? As a 17 year old she may struggle to raise the funds to get that into court, but I'd hope her parents could help out there, if just to teach the company a lesson they wont forget.
- CokeEatsYummy, on 10/11/2007, -50/+114http://digg.com/design/Underage_Photographer_s_Work_used_for_PORN
Buried: Duplicate story - dawnridge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+55To the unsympathetic gentlemen posting comments here - lets try a bit of role reversal.
How would you feel if your picture was featured on a gay porn DVD titled "Dozens of Loads on My Face: Cum-dumpsters Vol. 12" - Jo9100, on 10/11/2007, -15/+66that is the 3rd time in 2 days we see this story on front. "but im not on digg 24/7 to check", well maybe, and this is why they invented the duplicate check feature just before you sumbit, now just shut up.
- unfinite, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54Original Work: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/35480067/
- DemonEyesBob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+51You should change the title of this story -> she was 14-years-old in the picture. What they did is also fraud, so yes, it's illegal in more ways than one.
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -8/+51Good god... I hope she sues them... not only did they use her art without her permission for profit, they used an image of a 14 year old on the cover of a PORNO... -_-
I hope she does sue... because she'd clearly win... it's her image they stole... Milk all the money you can out of the morons!
The fact alone that they used the image of an underage girl on the cover of a porno... should get them all arrested...
it's amazing they are so stupid that they couldn't make their own coverart... -_- - otatop, on 10/11/2007, -1/+39They bought it from a third party who claimed it was their own stock photography.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+44She's a little Star ... a little p0rn star without even playing in a movie.
- xerus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27It is not public domain. Yes, the general stupid population of the internet using google image search believes that, but that doesn't make it true.
- TheGreatZarquon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29They are using an image of an underage girl to sell porn. How could anyone fail to find something wrong with that?
Don't get me wrong, I love porn, but this is absolutely wrong. - retawd, on 10/11/2007, -11/+37"that is the 3rd time in 2 days we see this story on front. "but im not on digg 24/7 to check", well maybe, and this is why they invented the duplicate check feature just before you sumbit, now just shut up."
*******************************************************
That makes no sense at all. None. If I don't know the article exists, and I am not submitting it (99.9% of the ppl reading this did not submit it), how am I supposed to see the dupe check?? Also, wtf is wrong with seeing something posted more than once? Did someone force you to click on the link to this article that you've already seen, or was it just an overwhelming need to whine? - JacKrac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26Here is a mirror of the image.
It looks like she was using ImageShack on her page
http://69.134.117.151/images/BodyMagic.jpg - gonknet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27That's not true at all.
- dgblackout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24if you took a picture "of" the internet. i'd buy it :]
- tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24@gcnaddict:
The FCC doesn't regulate DVDs. They only regulate "communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." DVDs/VHS/Porn Magazines don't enter into it. - bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28You're an idiot, thrallie.
Using 14-year old girls to sell hardcore pornography isn't "capitalism", well, yes it is, but....
Using images without their owners permission, while true capitalism, isn't "legal".
I hope she sues the filmmakers and marketers out of existence.
(besides, she's not in the movie, why is she on the cover?) - jkays, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light (verdict upheld by the 8th circuit)
For example, in Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Globe Int'l, Inc., a tabloid newspaper printed the picture of a 96-year-old Arkansas woman next to the headline “SPECIAL DELIVERY: World's oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she's pregnant! I guess walking all those miles kept me young.” 786 F. Supp. 791, 792 (D. Ark. 1992). The woman (not in fact pregnant), Nellie Mitchell, who had run a small newsstand on the town square since 1963, prevailed at trial under a theory of false light invasion of privacy, and was awarded damages of $1.5M. The tabloid appealed, generally disputing the offensiveness and falsity of the photograph, and arguing that Mitchell had not actually been injured, and claiming that Mitchell had failed to prove that any employee of the tabloid knew or had reason to know that its readers would conclude that the story about the pregnant carrier related to the photograph printed alongside. The court of appeals rejected all the tabloid’s arguments, holding that “[i]t may be. . .that Mrs. Mitchell does not show a great deal of obvious injury, but. . . Nellie Mitchell's experience could be likened to that of a person who had been dragged slowly through a pile of untreated sewage. . . [and] few would doubt that substantial damage had been inflicted by the one doing the dragging.” - NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24I think there has to be some kind of law against using the image of an underage girl, pornographic of not, on the cover of a porno... =/
Besides that, the image was stolen, and they have no right to use it for profit.
I just really hope this girl wins in court against these criminals... - Eddm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24She is hot though, and a very talented photographer to boot.
- jadenton, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17The good news here is the bastard is in Texas. This makes it real easy, and it won't cost her a dime.
She needs to call the county DA. Texas, being Texas, loves to bust pornographers, or even anyone deemed underdesirable. Local cops routinely harass legitimate adult merchants, so anythink with a whiff of child porn should send them into convulsions of ectasy. Even if this is more properly a civil case, it is likely the DA will be able to drum up something to drag them into court. Double your chances by figuring out when its election year, and making the complain four months before the election. - cobrabyte, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16*BUZZER* ... wrong.
Please read-up before implying that you're an expert on copyright law.
Here's a good start: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Oh, and you could check out the actual law, too. - bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -16/+30I don't see how her being underage matters at all. The picture they used was not pornographic so it isn't child pornography, what else law is there here? The theft of the photo is the only issue I think.
- mikev, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19that's not even funny
- digitalArtform, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14It's touching how many of you believe copyright laws are for small artists. Did you read her web page? Nobody gives a crap. Do you see anyone rushing to help her? Copyright laws are for the benefit of large corporations.
- PepeGSay, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15No. OP is right, if you read the entire terms you see this gem:
16. Copyright in Your Content
deviantART does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant to deviantART a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content.
Remember people copyright is not the same as distribution rights or right to display and use or even sell.
Or this great part of the terms of service:
13. Registration
To register as a member of the Service or purchase products, you must be 18 years or lawfully permitted to enter into and form contracts under applicable law. In no event may minors submit Content to the Service. You agree that the information that you provide to us upon registration, at the time of purchase, and at all other times will be true, accurate, current and complete. You also agree that you will ensure that this information is kept accurate and up to date at all times. This is especially important with respect to your email address, since that is the primary way in which we will communicate with you about your account and your orders. - WebCester, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14In his defense, the original pic used too much of image shack's bandwidth so that's the only picture on the page.
- adrianmonk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14One word: libel.
By putting a photo of her on the cover of a porno DVD, they are suggesting that she is involved in the porn industry. - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12At the very least, they broke copyright laws. They used an image they didn't own without the permission of the copyright holder.
And if a company can sue for associating their product or property with something unsavory, then this person sure as hell can do the same. - phenolholic, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20is it just me or is she ***** hot, even at 14.
- Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The mere thought of that seriously made me want to hurl.
- alexforcefive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Copyright is opt-out, not opt-in. If you aren't explicitly given permission to use something, you can't use it
- Lane, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13lets hope she wins big suing for damages.they arent just using without her approval there selling her work. perhaps even slander.
- alife, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13In many countries you can't use an image from a anyone under 18 without parent consent. May be it's a little drastic, but if you contact some association that deals with child pornography they can help you.
- Metalcard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Sue for copyright, child porn, and emotional damages (this is where you will get the most money, and it almost never fails).
- xerus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Maybe *you* should read the EULA?
"However, deviantART does not claim ownership rights in your works or other materials posted by you to deviantART (Your Content)." - clarusgoesmoof, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Wrong. Using a copyrighted work without permission is a crime. The fact that she is under 18 and the product is pornography may also be a crime. I suspect that the latter could even be a felony.
- jkays, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10She could start here with a letter, to locate the respective local DA or in the alternative have the AG's office take up the issue through the Cyber Crimes Task Force. The AG's office may be able to get any other relevant local and federal authorities involved as well. She also has the right to pursue civil remedies for damages as well:
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Main agency switchboard
(512) 463-2100
Public Information & Assistance
(800) 252-8011 or (512) 475-4413 (in Austin)
(512) 475-2994 (fax)
For Public Information & Assistance, E-mail your questions and comments to: public.information@oag.state.tx.us - specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10You'd have to be a complete moron to take a picture of the internet and use it as your own (or sell it).
Jesus! - Gullop, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11yea that's just poor
- stacigh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Submitted this to CNN for this poor girl. Hopefully, CNN can make a newscast about this and get her some publicity to help her out.
- OisinT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I agree... if I was licensed to practice law in the US I would take her case on pro bono.
I really hope someone helps her out here, because this is wrong in the eyes of the law on a few levels - quisph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Ownership of the content IS copyright. The part that you quoted is deviantART claiming copyright over ITS OWN work, i.e. the site itself, not the work that other people submit through the service. The key phrase is "unless otherwise stated;" every user page "states otherwise" by displaying a copyright notice followed by that user's name. The user owns it; deviantART does not.
- jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Absolutely wrong. Read the last sentence of point 4: "However, deviantART DOES NOT claim ownership rights in your works or other materials posted by you to deviantART (Your Content)."
I.e., deviantArt only owns the copyright of its own materials (such as the general materials for its website). It does not own the copyright of user-submitted content.
The person who creates a photograph or other art automatically owns the copyright. (This is basic United States copyright law, discussed above.) The person does not surrender that copyright by submitting it to deviantArt.
Edit: guisph beat me to it - NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11How is this not wrong? how could anyone think using the image of a 14 year old on a porn cover is ok? Not only is that wrong, but it gives her image and her life a bad name...
Besides that... they had no right to use the image! It was not public domain, or a stock image, as they so claim... They had no right to use it for profit... I think she has a clear case against these *****...
I can think of at least 5 different things she could successfully sue these guys for... - AnotherBrian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Someone told her about it. RTFA
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 