Model Suing Apple Over Stolen iPhoto Pictures
Girl suing Apple and app developer after pictures of her appeared in a saucy App Store application.
Aspiring model Rebecca Battino, 19, says the photos she took of herself when she was 16-years-old were used without her permission in 'eXtreme Cam Girls' and the New York Post reports that the photos have spread 'like a virus to dozens of flesh sites' across the web. Battino says the pictures were stolen from her computer but refused to discuss who might have stolen them or how they may have gone about it.
Neither Apple nor Samba Studios have commented on the million dollar lawsuit filed by Battino last week. However, Ms. Battino has made her motives for the lawsuit very clear and isn't, as most would assume, uncomfortable with her private photos appearing in sexy apps.
"I was just upset that I'm not being paid for my pictures," she told the New York Post. "I'm not embarrassed."
Source: NYPost
*Image via Facebook
- Beijing Apple Store Ups Security to Fight Scalpers
- This Is The PlayStation Phone
- White iPhone 4 Delayed Again; Possibly Canned
- Judge Finally Nukes LimeWire's P2P Client
- 100 Mbps Could Finally Be Possible on DSL Lines
- Razer Says It Has ''World's First' MMO Keyboard
- 1M Angry Birds Halloween Downloads in 6 Days
- 3-D Printer Made Entirely out of Lego
- B&N's $249 Android-powered Ereader/Tablet
- Wi-Fi Alliance Certifying Wi-Fi Direct Products
- Computer Powered by Water and Pencil Lead
- Robot Almost Fools You Into Calling "Her" Real
- Blizzcon's Starcraft Ghost Sports Glowing Armor
- The Life-Size Android Roaming Australian Streets
- Acer Boss Reveals Tablet Line Coming Nov. 23
- T-Mobile Selling Galaxy Tab for $400 on Nov. 10
- Dell Planning Android Version of Sexy Venue Pro
- Yes, Please: A Nexus Two in Time for Christmas
- Google CEO Retracts Street View Privacy Joke
so wait..she was dumb enough to take the pictures. then she was even dumber for getting them stolen so now she is going to sue the manufacturer of her computer and the software company that helps develop software. People will sue for anything now wont they.
People will sue for anything now wont they.
Yes they would.
How on earth do you equate being the victim of theft as being dumb?
"I was just upset that I'm not being paid for my pictures,"
....Welcome in the real world, how much do you think your pretty face worth????
umm, did you actually read the article? It has nothing to do with the manufacturer of her computer or anything like that. She is suing the particular app developer for using her picture without her permission and is suing Apple for distributing said application and thus her picture.
Thats all it is.
Even dumber.....
She admits that she shot the photos of herself when she was 16
Can anyone say under age minor?
A can of worms may have been opened just by her having admitted the aged at which the photos were taken, which in turn could possibly get her in a heap of trouble.
LOL i can see the headline after this... "apple settles law suit with aspiring porn star over illegal distrebuited pictures" thats definatly one funny PR mess.
But she shouldn't have posted them to the internet then. Just another clueless person.
I am gonna sue people who sue people who sue people...
Even dumber.....She admits that she shot the photos of herself when she was 16Can anyone say under age minor?A can of worms may have been opened just by her having admitted the aged at which the photos were taken, which in turn could possibly get her in a heap of trouble.
I'm not sure she could get in trouble, there's no law against taking pictures of yourself. However, anyone distributing those photos could get in trouble (she said they were stolen, she didn't distribute them).
I don't know about the dollar amount, but I think she might have a case here if the pictures are being used without her consent. Remember, just because someone posts pictures in a publicly available setting doesn't mean they are fair-use. In fact, Tom's could get in trouble for distributing a pic of her they found on Facebook. Copyright applies to published and non published works. That's why you get those stupid disclaimers at the start of sports events, just because they're airing a football game over the air on Fox doesn't mean you can copy it and sell videos of it.
Even dumber.....She admits that she shot the photos of herself when she was 16Can anyone say under age minor?A can of worms may have been opened just by her having admitted the aged at which the photos were taken, which in turn could possibly get her in a heap of trouble.
how would she get in trouble. she already told them it was stolen pics. it will just add more flames to apple and samba becaus now there posting underaged pictures for millions to see. check it out i know its half way down the document... and might be along read but you will get to the line where she says it was stolen dont worry.
You can sue anyone, for anything, even if you are an idiot. Not newsworthy. Next.
Seems like quite clever self marketing to me. I wonder how many people have now googled her.
I'm not sure she could get in trouble, there's no law against taking pictures of yourself. However, anyone distributing those photos could get in trouble (she said they were stolen, she didn't distribute them).
If there is anything to be embarrassed about (showing anything that should not be showing), then the photos would be covered under child pornography laws.
If you are under age 99.9% of the time, you get the shaft even if you didn't do anything illegal yourself other than doing something stupid such as taking nude photos of yourself or consensual sex with another of the same age, etc, etc, etc....
She's not attractive enough to sue over her pictures...
how would she get in trouble. she already told them it was stolen pics. it will just add more flames to apple and samba becaus now there posting underaged pictures for millions to see. check it out i know its half way down the document... and might be along read but you will get to the line where she says it was stolen dont worry.
It doesn't matter that she herself admitted that the photos were stolen.
The moment she admitted that the photos were taken by herself while she was still under age, Law enforcement and Child Services would automatically take notice.
It would not matter that she took the photos herself and it would not matter that they had originally been supposedly safe on her own system. What they would be interested in is the fact that she had illegal material on her computer to begin with, even if she was the photographer and the subject of the photos herself.
We can only wait and see how this plays out and what happens.
If she is lucky, the Law & Child Services will fail to notice her Gaff.
Lawyers have to eat too.
It's funny when chicks take slutty pics then get mad when someone posts them on the Net. HELLO WOMEN!!! CAN YOU HEAR ME!!!?? IF YOU DON'T WANT THESE PICS ON THE NET, DO NOT TAKE THEM!!! It's that easy.
As long as she's the photographer and didn't knowingly distribute the pictures, it doesn't matter what she's wearing or not wearing as they'd be deemed "art" until the point that they're willfully distributed by her.
so wait..she was dumb enough to take the pictures. then she was even dumber for getting them stolen so now she is going to sue the manufacturer of her computer and the software company that helps develop software. People will sue for anything now wont they.
Fact is, in the US she owns ALL rights to her image without a written contract giving away usage rights to said image. Also, it's illegal to knowingly and willfully use someone's image without their conscent....or, in the case of a minor, the parents' conscent. If the pictures are sexually explicit in nature Apple and Samba can be charged with posession and distribution of child pornography
If she was a little smarter and thought long term, she could have applied as a model instead of suing Apple. Fashion designers are fanatic about apple, they won't take this lady lightly if she ever comes on their door steps.
It's funny when chicks take slutty pics then get mad when someone posts them on the Net. HELLO WOMEN!!! CAN YOU HEAR ME!!!?? IF YOU DON'T WANT THESE PICS ON THE NET, DO NOT TAKE THEM!!! It's that easy.
Your caps-lock privileges have been revoked.
I really don't understand how you guys are bashing this girl as stupid. She's a model.(or so the article says). She sells images of herself for a living. A company used images of her without payment or permission. She's suing them, as any model in the business would.
If this were Tyra Banks, this would have been an apple bashing comment section instead. You guys need to find some common sense.
Your caps-lock privileges have been revoked. I really don't understand how you guys are bashing this girl as stupid. She's a model.(or so the article says). She sells images of herself for a living. A company used images of her without payment or permission. She's suing them, as any model in the business would. If this were Tyra Banks, this would have been an apple bashing comment section instead. You guys need to find some common sense.
Your caps-lock privileges have been revoked. I really don't understand how you guys are bashing this girl as stupid. She's a model.(or so the article says). She sells images of herself for a living. A company used images of her without payment or permission. She's suing them, as any model in the business would. If this were Tyra Banks, this would have been an apple bashing comment section instead. You guys need to find some common sense.
i think tyra banks is annoying imho
Kind of shows that this is a dumb publicity stunt, an attempt to shoot to fame.
wait a minute you idiots, this no publicly stunt. she has every right to sue, someone is making money off her image and she is not getting a dime. As someone who works with rights for images, I'm familiar with these types of issues. You would not beleive how many idiots just use an image for a product when they have no legal right.
Basically Samba took her image off the web hoping to use it for free, it doesn't work like that. It's no different then using a picture of Michael Jordan to endorse your product when you have no contract to. Apple is named since they host the app, plus it puts pressure on them to pull it off the app store and cut off Samba revenue.
Who even uses a real face anymore, without digital enhancements? Nobody is too special not to have bigger eyes, a slightly different nose, a forehead that's bigger or smaller, etc, etc. If they bothered to do that, can a person even sue, because it's not really them? There's a billion photos of a billion different people, who could just as well be someone else, or a digitally enhanced person who doesn't even exist.
She has every right to sue. It is her photo and due to the digital millenium copyright act
the photo is copyrighted and thus legally hers. So any company that profits from this
photo or uses it is breaking copyright laws. Also anyone who profits from the
copyright violation even unknowingly is still responsible for such. So in this case
Apple can be sued. Granted suing Apple isn't the moral thing to do as they were unknowing.
In fact due to her popularity she should try to use this as a way to upstart her modeling
career and perhaps work for Apple doing commercials and other forms of advertising
Also do not think for one second this is some sort of rare occurance where pictures are stolen
from everyday people and used in such ways. Many weight loss ads with the before and after pictures steal the pics online are actually stolen from weight loss forums. Then the ad says
they used the method advertised when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Strangely enough this happened to one of my wife's weight loss buddies on one of the forums
and that very ad was put on this very site as well as tons of others.
more pics of the model please
umm, did you actually read the article? It has nothing to do with the manufacturer of her computer or anything like that. She is suing the particular app developer for using her picture without her permission and is suing Apple for distributing said application and thus her picture. Thats all it is.
Did YOU really read the article? It was only a few paragraphs but let me paraphrase it....
"The pics were used without her permission in 'eXtreme Cam Girls' ".... "Battino says the pictures were stolen from her computer but refused to discuss who might have stolen them or how they may have gone about it"
Someone copied her pics from her PC and sold em or posted em online. Apple had nothing to do with this but built the PC. If I run you over for no reason in my car are you gonna sue Toyota?
I totally agree with an earlier post that the publicity she gets from this is worth more than she'll ever get from the frivolous lawsuit. Case gets thrown own and everyone knows her name
I didn't read all of the comments so maybe someone already addressed this but where did it say the pics that were being distributed were nudes(some people were bitching about her being underage)?
A.) I thought that Apple won't allow porn to be published to their app store. => not nude
B.) With suggested evidence above, pictures of the then 16y.o. wouldn't be illegal.
To clarify, pictures of people under 18 are not inherently illegal, even if they're modeling. Only if it is a "sexual setting" is it considered porn i.e. nude, dry humping etc. I don't give a shit about her lawsuit I just don't like nanny laws and the misinterpretation of nanny laws.. 16 is old enough imo.
these type of girls/women doesnt have charachter as they beleave that they can make money even out of their sillyness . and the last comment "I'm not embarrassed." is showing her rudeness and and shamefull for other respectable women. these type of photos must be published in such xcam girls like websites without any compensation/fee, and even court should scold her for shameless behaviour .
If she was a little smarter and thought long term, she could have applied as a model instead of suing Apple. Fashion designers are fanatic about apple, they won't take this lady lightly if she ever comes on their door steps.
Who needs modelling if she win the lawsuit