Is there anything legally that can be done about celebrity nude fakes?

I’d say no, since misconstruing celebs images is a multi-billion dollar industry in this country. Just look at the checkout lines in the grocery store. There is definitely a mass market for this absolute trash. This presents the ultimate question; how is celeb news relevant on any level of importance besides the newest movies, of which again most are trash (excluding obvious exceptions, inception, imdb top 250, etc)

Hmm… there might be a way to get this under defamation. From this article on wikipedia:

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

It seems like she might be able to sue saying that these images imply she did nude photos at some point (assuming she never did). Its not much a stretch really, but I haven’t looked at the statutes or case law about this.

In the late 90s Alyssa Milano had some success in this area, but I don’t know what they can do, now, given the sheer enormity of the internet.

@roundsquare They’re called “fakes”, where is any implication of factuality when the very name implies the opposite?

@dkranzberg Safesearch, for you. She’ll have to live with it because as long as they’re not treated as truth they’re covered by freedom of expression.

@Thammuz I would guess it depends how clear the website makes that. It would probably need to be quite clear.

@roundsquare Nah, companies get away with the fine print, why wouldn’t websites get away with it as well? Besides most sites proudly sport the word “fakes” right in the url…

@Thammuz
I don’ t need Safesearch. It’s not that I can’t handle the images. I was upset for her. And it’s not that I’m against “freedom of expression.” You have paraphrased the 1st Amendment. Fine. Here’s the 9th Amendment to the Constitution:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

EZ translation: You can’t use one right to take away or diminish the rights of others…like the right to not have your character damaged or diminished by others. You can’t even use one right to take away a natural right that may not be listed—like the right to sue in civil court (See the 7th Amendment) for defamation of character.

If you hold one right as essential, you must admit to all.

@dkranzberg I don’ t need Safesearch. It’s not that I can’t handle the images.

I came upon the most vile fakes of her that it actually made me sick to my stomach.

Sounds like that’s the case to me.

You have paraphrased the 1st Amendment. Fine. Here’s the 9th Amendment to the Constitution:
Nowhere does it say that i should give a shit only because it’s in your constitution.

like the right to not have your character damaged or diminished by others.
Which is where, exactly? Where is the right not to be insulted? Because, to me, it seems that would kinda kill the only purpose of freedom of speech, which is the freedom to dissent without someone legally prosecuting you (what fom it takes is irrelevant, and if something of dubious worth slips through to preserve this freedom, it’s an acceptable sacrifice) since anything can be construed as an insult, with a little imagination.

If you hold one right as essential, you must admit to all.
Why? Because i either dogmatically agree with the bill of rights or i have to flagellate myself? I’m a human being capable of deciding what i find fair and what i find important, thank you very much.

I think freedom of expression is essential for any civilization that wants to stave off dictatorship status as long as possible. If you start legislating that i can’t depict Scarlett Johanson taking it up the arse because it’s insulting, i see a good opening for barring criticism to the president or the government on the same basis.

Take it from an italian, the first thing to die when Mussolini rose to power was the freedom of the press, then the freedom to dissent.

I’ll take fake nudes and political dissidents over pristine public images and the black shirts any day, thank you. I’d quote “First monday in October” but i can’t find the right quote at the moment and i can’t watch it, since i’m in class at the moment.

@Thammuz
I was unaware that you were an Italian national. Of course you don’t need to “give as shit ” about what is in the Constitution of the US.

No matter where you go in this world, natural rights do exist, whether you’d like accept it or not. I don’t disagree on the notion that a person should be free to “depict Scarlett Johansson taking it up the arse”, as long as the artist realizes that other rights, like the right to sue, exist too. We may also agree that legislating (as in criminal statutes) and prosecuting (as in the state bringing criminal charges) on questions of morality is a wrong-headed and potentially dangerous path to take. However, I was addressing a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Any person who holds one natural right as superior to other natural rights demonstrates a propensity to violate the rights of others.

By the way…in a bit of historic irony…since you are an Italian who thinks that “the first thing to die when Mussolini rose to power was freedom of the press, then the freedom to dissent.” This is backwards. The Acerbo Law came first. Once one party rule was established through a bit of constitutional trickery, then freedom of speech and press followed.

@dkranzberg as long as the artist realizes that other rights, like the right to sue, exist too.

Sure, as the right to vehemently insult him on the street exists. The fact that the lawsuit should also be dismissed as frivolous because it infringes on the artist’s freedom of expression comes by itself, though.

I was addressing a civil matter

Now, i’m no law student by any stretch of the word (i’m studying engineering, only physics’ laws apply) but to me it seems that, be the matter criminal or civil, rights remain rights.

Any person who holds one natural right as superior to other natural rights demonstrates a propensity to violate the rights of others.

Which i have no problem with, as long as said person is within the boundaries of his own rights. Nobody has the right not to be offended. if we were to legislate that, we’d all have to sew our mouths shut, barricade ourselves in our homes and never communicate with another living being ever again, because anything can be offensive to someone.

I for one feel the urge to slap people who wear baseball caps turned 90° to the side. I find it absolutely retarded and their sight directly provokes the reptilian part of my brain, forcing me to repress the instinct of stabbing them in the eyesocket with a spoon. By this logic i should be suing every motherfucker i see wearing one, because their display of idiocy by way of freedom of dressing like a twat offends me.

If somoene went around saying i wore baseball hats sideways i’d be pissed, but i still wouldn’t be allowed to sue him because, despite my reptilian brain’s desire, we’re not allowed to stomp the shit out of other people’s freedom to spew bullshit. Although If we were, creationists, astrologists and assorted manure merchants would be out of a job.

The point being that yeah, everyone’s got the right to do whatever they want, even sue people for doing what is their right to do, waste the time of the judge, waste their own money and that of their opponent in lawyer expenses, drag the bureaucratic bullshit on for months and have their eventual victory ultimately overturned by the supreme court because of the first amendment (which is what always happens in these cases, and thank fuck for that).

The state however has the duty to keep the priorities straight. Creating a precedent of barring some form of expression, because someone was offended by it, is dangerous and no one person’s dignity is worth it. Actually, scratch that, nothing is worth it.

The Acerbo Law came first.

Which has nothing to do with freedom of the press or freedom of dissent. That’s the law Mussolini passed to have an unchallanged majority, AKA rising to power. Then, as i said, the first thing to die when Mussolini rose to power was the freedom of the press, then the freedom to dissent. By which i don’t mean that voting meant nothing (which it never does), i mean that people were held for questioning because they said they didn’t agree with Mussolini and someone ratted them out.

Before, he had his goons illegally beating up those who publicly disagreed with him, after that he could pursue them legally. Which is far worse and much, much different.

You wrote: “Sure, as the right to vehemently insult him on the street exists.”
You wrote about Mussolini’s rise to power: “Before, he had his goons illegally beating up those who publicly disagreed with him,”

Strange…when you read these two statements of yours back to back, isn’t it?

Which reminds me of this:
I wrote: “Any person who holds one natural right as superior to other natural rights demonstrates a propensity to violate the rights of others.”
To which you responded, curiously, “Which i have no problem with…”

Sounds like you have more in common with Mussolini than you’d like to admit.

Then, you wrote: “The state however has the duty to keep the priorities straight. Creating a precedent of barring some form of expression, because someone was offended by it, is dangerous and no one person’s dignity is worth it. Actually, scratch that, nothing is worth it.”

You just don’t get it. In civil matters, private individuals bring suit against other private individuals. The state simply plays referee.

Those who abuse the rights of others to pursue an anarchic interpretation of rights are often STATISTS in disguise, using their freedom to promote the destruction of civil society in order to create fear, distrust, hate—an atmosphere that can be taken advantage of. I hope you understand that your holding freedom of expression as a superior right actually increases the chances for statist responses among people. It’s a simple, universal truism, that when people cease to be self-regulating that people end up clamoring for statist solutions. Your attitude contributes to statist tendencies every bit as much as some moralist. Your attitude helps to foster an atmosphere where moral absolutists flourish.

I won’t add a great deal to what Kranzberg says, re: law, it’s pretty well argued (Slam dunk, I think, although I’m not an expert)...but aside form the legal argument, I would say that relativists too can prosper (not only the absolutists) using the STATIST’s anarchic reading of rights.

The Bill of Rights allows an individual to possess rights, but without a sense of responsibility or duty to actions that are known to be respectful and civil (e.g., intentionally not publicizing phony images of women with penises in their mouths without permission)...well, you just have the law of the jungle with respect to civility.

That distorted system of “rights” is fodder for the relativists who love to say that truth is whatever they think it is (which is no truth at all…In fact, they can’t even make their case that THAT statement is true without losing their own argument). But it works for them. Their unreasoning /ill logic is used to silence anyone who might claim to observe /sense or detect civility in human behavior and events.

The relativists are the real censors and suppressors though, not the poor actresses who, because of the relativists creepy and logically completely unsupported ideology, must put up with obvious character assassinations. The people doing the fake images appear to be trying to make themselves feel better by denigrating others…and in the process they bring down and insult everyone who sees their creepiness on display.

I would fault no one who sues the artists /authors ISPs, search engine owners, etc, who hide behind the fine print in a EULA or some perverse interpretation of law rather than review and vet content and /or spell out limitations of what you can post using another person’s image regardless of whether you’ve called it “fake” or not.

@dkranzberg

_You wrote: “Sure, as the right to vehemently insult him on the street exists.”
You wrote about Mussolini’s rise to power: “Before, he had his goons illegally beating up those who publicly disagreed with him,”_

Strange…when you read these two statements of yours back to back, isn’t it?

Not really, insulting someone is not a crime, nor is it damaging to the person.

_I wrote: “Any person who holds one natural right as superior to other natural rights demonstrates a propensity to violate the rights of others.”
To which you responded, curiously, “Which i have no problem with…”_

Which is true and perfectly reasonable. Laws are there for a reason, if nobody had the propensity to do wrong we wouldn’t need them. As long as this propensity is kept in check by the individual it’s just another character flaw, otherwise it probably becomes a crime of some sort.
If it becomes something that is annoying but it’s not a crime, the person is a dick and, as annoying as that may be, that’s not illegal.

Sounds like you have more in common with Mussolini than you’d like to admit.

Not gonna dignify that with a response, really.

You just don’t get it. In civil matters, private individuals bring suit against other private individuals. The state simply plays referee.

The state plays referee, you’re right, and the referee should enforce the rules of the game. Rules which include that pesky freedom of expression regardless of the contents.

As far as i know, there IS a right to deny the use of one’s likeness, for instance. I’m not sure if that would be enough, because the fair use clause includes parody, and nowhere does it say it needs to be tasteful parody, but still, there are ways.

Those who abuse the rights of others [...] Your attitude helps to foster an atmosphere where moral absolutists flourish.

Conjectures, ad hominem and slippery slopes, not even worth addressing. Attributing a nefarious purpose to one’s self interested actions to be able to condemn some sort of master plan behind it is just lame. Try arguing the point and not reaching for hypotheticals.

@T_Smithers Yeah, fuck “rights”, who needs “rights”? It’s all about what outrage and moral crusading!

Do you even hear yourself? The reason why rights are treated as they are is because if you can make special pleading for one circumstance then you can make it for every circumstance. That’s how the legal system works. If every case needs to be argued on an individual basis there is no metric for a “fair” judgement. That’s what laws are for.

If the law says you can’t do X you can’t do it. If it doesn’t, then you can.

Should you adhere to the letter of the law and not to its spirit? No. Can you? Sure, otherwise the spirit of the law would BE the law, and I dare you to legislate in an unambiguous way something as vague as “dignity”, “respect”, “offensive” and so on.