I'm asking for a friend who used to work for an agency but is now UTR after parting ways with said agency for having used pics with her face visible on ads without her authorization. Ads on Callescort, NaughtnSexy, EroticMonkey that have gotten picked up since by listcrawlers like EscortBabylon, EscortAlligator etc. as well as review sites like ECCIE and TER.
Unfortunately, she fucked up and provided the agency with pics not having her face blurred or filtered herself. Said agency was supposed to do the editing and filtering but didn't. She quit the agency after finding out a little too late. The agency is unwilling to cooperate about taking her ads off the listing sites and is using her pics to catfish clients.
Anyone with experience in this scenario please advise how to get these pics off these listing sites. There's the matter of protecting her kids and keeping something like this from her ex. Anything that could help, please.
- hotrix1
- 04-10-2021, 02:29 PM
- Unique_Carpenter
- 04-14-2021, 09:39 AM
She needs to get a lawyer to issue "take down notices" (a letter) per the DMCA.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
However, she may need to prove she owns the picture copyright.
Note that being the person in the pic does not qualify.
The photog owns the pic/copyright unless there's an actual different agreement.
What the situation is for your friend is quite common, even in the civie real world.
That said, you mention that she provided the pics. Thus, the agency may not own the copyright.
Most websites will take down an ad/pic upon notice. The notice must contain the actual website internet address that the pic is at.
You can't say if.. you can't ask them to find it... you can't be vague...
You have to specifically state pic at website address http...
Some sites have a posted link to use for complaints. Use it to deliver specifics.
So here's the issue, it's extremely time consuming and will be frustrating. And the pics will keep popping up elsewhere.
Once she gets used to what a take down letter is, maybe she can try do that herself.
Good luck.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
However, she may need to prove she owns the picture copyright.
Note that being the person in the pic does not qualify.
The photog owns the pic/copyright unless there's an actual different agreement.
What the situation is for your friend is quite common, even in the civie real world.
That said, you mention that she provided the pics. Thus, the agency may not own the copyright.
Most websites will take down an ad/pic upon notice. The notice must contain the actual website internet address that the pic is at.
You can't say if.. you can't ask them to find it... you can't be vague...
You have to specifically state pic at website address http...
Some sites have a posted link to use for complaints. Use it to deliver specifics.
So here's the issue, it's extremely time consuming and will be frustrating. And the pics will keep popping up elsewhere.
Once she gets used to what a take down letter is, maybe she can try do that herself.
Good luck.
- hotrix1
- 04-15-2021, 02:33 PM
Thank for the reply U_C. Same information I gave her. Will hope for the best. Wondering if ShysterJon has any wisdom to add.
- ShysterJon
- 04-19-2021, 01:29 PM
I generally agree with Unique_Carpenter's analysis, but having handled dozens of these cases, federal and state laws governing the use of images rarely come into play.
The following is my method:
1. Contact the website and nicely ask that the image(s) be removed. Once a lawyer gets involved, the stakes change for the website. To avoid the hassle of having an attorney getting up in their shit, about 50 percent of the time the website takes down the image(s).
2. If no. 1 doesn't work, I determine the owner of the website and send that person or entity a formal take-down notice. After I do this, about 35 percent of the time the image(s) is deleted.
3. Occasionally, when a website fails to take down the images after I try 1 and 2, I file a suit for injunctive relief in Texas state court. Such a suit would probably be subject to removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction - that is, the plaintiff and defendant live in different states - but no defendant has sought removal; rather, once they get a copy of the TRO (temporary restraining order), the website took down the image(s). I don't use the provider's RW name in the lawsuit.
4. Long-term, vigilant monitoring for new images - call it Internet Whack-A-Mole.
The following is my method:
1. Contact the website and nicely ask that the image(s) be removed. Once a lawyer gets involved, the stakes change for the website. To avoid the hassle of having an attorney getting up in their shit, about 50 percent of the time the website takes down the image(s).
2. If no. 1 doesn't work, I determine the owner of the website and send that person or entity a formal take-down notice. After I do this, about 35 percent of the time the image(s) is deleted.
3. Occasionally, when a website fails to take down the images after I try 1 and 2, I file a suit for injunctive relief in Texas state court. Such a suit would probably be subject to removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction - that is, the plaintiff and defendant live in different states - but no defendant has sought removal; rather, once they get a copy of the TRO (temporary restraining order), the website took down the image(s). I don't use the provider's RW name in the lawsuit.
4. Long-term, vigilant monitoring for new images - call it Internet Whack-A-Mole.
- Unique_Carpenter
- 04-23-2021, 08:30 PM
Jon is, again, on point,
Being nice for the first request is probably preferable in this situation.
I guess I'm jaded on the topic as pictures, regardless of subject, get copied effortlessly, and will keep popping up elsewhere, becoming frustrating to deal with. Jon's comment of "Internet Wack a Mole" is quite an accurate comparison.
In the commercial photography world, as everyone knows the copyright rules, notices are frequently issued straight off. Simply a bit of a difference in approach depending on situation.
Being nice for the first request is probably preferable in this situation.
I guess I'm jaded on the topic as pictures, regardless of subject, get copied effortlessly, and will keep popping up elsewhere, becoming frustrating to deal with. Jon's comment of "Internet Wack a Mole" is quite an accurate comparison.
In the commercial photography world, as everyone knows the copyright rules, notices are frequently issued straight off. Simply a bit of a difference in approach depending on situation.