Preventing Photos from being Published - Research Paper Example

An argument Against Swifts attempt to prevent the photos from being published My argument about the whole scenario is that Swift would not successfully pull through with her intention to sue or be able to give an injunction to TMV not to publish her nude photos. First is the simple reason of how TMV obtained the photos. It wasnt by any illegal means whatsoever. TMV obtained the photos from Katy Perry and did not by any way invade the privacy of Swift. In the privacy law, especially of public figures including celebrities like Swift, tort is only committed when the information to be published by any media outlet is obtained unlawfully. The photographs were not taken by TMV neither did they have their photographers enter into her compound or peep into her windows without her consent to take them. The press outlet thus would not have violated any intrusion law by having her nude photos published. Second, the First amendment law enables the media or any press outlet to obtain information from any source by lawful means. Katy Perry as a source of information, however their differences with Swift, would be a lawful source, and it would be difficult to prove it otherwise in any court of law. The access to sources of information by the press, especially in view of the first amendment law, is considered by most courts as exclusive and without any jurisdiction. For instance, in a case pitting Bartnicki against Vopper, 200 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1999), a person who was unknown recorded a phone conversations between two union officials. He then made the tapes available to a union opponent who delivered them to a local media outlet. The two sued the media defendants for violating the state and federal wiretap laws. The court decreed that the first amendment rights of the defendant exempted him from being liable to the damages caused. Drawing conclusions from this case, it would be argued that TMV, which also has its first amendment rights, would not be liable to the damages caused to Swift by the publishing her nude photos. Another reason that would make it hard for swift to stop the publishing of the photos is the First amendment law regarding prior restraints. The First amendment law prohibits any form of prior restraint on the media outlets on all matters and just in some limited contexts. This is not restricted or determined by how the photos were obtained, Even if the photos were stolen or offered with malicious motives, the law would forbid any prior restraint to their publication. Although Katy at the time of offering the photos to TMV was in a feud with Swift, the court cannot give an injunction to stop them from publishing them. A case in point was when Daniel Ellsberg, in the famous "Pentagon Papers" case trial from 1971, allegedly stole the pentagon papers that contained vital security information and provided them to the New York Times, who later published them even with the knowledge about how the information was obtained. This, as it might seem more serious and vindictive, even after the government trying to stop its publishing as it contained vital security information, did not justify prior restraint. Drawing inference, this case would not by any means justify any prior restraint. Another violation of the law that would work against Taylor Swift is that of the Child Pornography Law. Federal law describes child pornography as any visible depiction of sexually explicit behavior involving a minor, considered individual under the age of 18. In most states across America, sexting involving the sending of nude pictures and photos of underage teenagers is prohibited and once found; one can face felony charges and when convicted, would have to register as a sex offender. When an image is taken when one is underage, despite the person responsible, is deemed as a federal misdemeanor and could lead to a conviction in a court of law. This was to be able to protect children against sexual manipulation. Taylor Swift took her pictures when at the age of 17.5yrs and texted the same to her boyfriend at the time. This in law is considered as sexting involving minors and would attract felony charges as per the existing federal laws. This was as in a 2010 case that involved some students from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, aged 13 to 17, who were charged with felony for being in possession of nude photos which they allegedly sent to each other. One could likewise argue on the basis of the copyright laws that would prohibit TMV from publishing these photos as it didnt have a copyright. This would assist Swift in her defense as it is her who created the photos and thus have the copyright. But once the copyright infringement clause is brought up in a law court it would require her to go and obtain a copyright and register the photographs with the copyright office of the U. S. As this might seem a solution from the rear glance, it would not actually be a guarantee that this would provide the basis for giving TMZ an injunction against producing the photos. After 2006, when the Supreme Court threw out the existing laws that had existed for a long time on injunctions in cases involving intellectual property on a case called eBay v. MercExchange, the presumed remedy for patent and copyright cases of injunction was thrown out. The plaintiff, in this case Taylor Swift must give proof of irreparable damage in order to get the injunction ruling in her favor. The exercise furthermore would be more costly, and perchance surpassed by time. For her also to get the copyright of the photos, she would then have to reveal a person who took the photos and also deposit a copy of each of the photos with the copyright office. Most of these are private issues, and one would not want to reveal them as required by the state law, making it futile. TMZ would, on the other hand, have an absolute right to publish the photos. As stated above, they are protected by the first amendment law that offers them the absolute freedom and will obtain and publish facts without due interference from any quarter including that of the government. An invasion of privacy allegation by an individual must be weighed against the violation of the first amendment law that offers the freedom to publish information. The law further protects the press when they publicize information that is already in existence in the public gallery. The photos being in possession of Katy Perry, it would be so laborious to prove that the photos hadnt been circulated and already in the public eye. Another issue that would be a tussle in the court of law would be proving the newsworthiness of the photos being published, or whether it would be in the publics interest. This could go either way, and in most controversial cases involving public figures, the courts find it always hard in second guessing the media. The newsworthiness of the whole scenario would be the fact that Swift, being a public individual had violated the child pornography law by sending nude photos to her partner while she was an underage. Greater responsibility is expected of public individuals who in most cases are regarded as role models and because most of their monies are derived through their publicity, it would be of greater public interest to be informed of what they do mostly behind closed doors and in their private lives. To have them not publish the photos, and then Swift, through her lawyers, would have to prove that her privacy has been violated, which I believe is a mountain of a task. Another argument that would be of interest would be seeking of her consent in approving the publishing of the photos. Legally, I believe it wouldnt be necessary for TMZ to seek Taylor Swift consent in doing that. Firstly, as already stated before, TMZ did not obtain the photos from her and neither did they hack her account to obtain them. The photos were obtained lawfully. Often, it always ends up in a law suit when photos are taken, especially of public individuals, privately, especially when the photographers trespass their private territories. It however wont be a totally lost cause for Taylor Swift if she sued TMV for allegedly wanting to publish her nude photos. Numerous legal grounds, if argued out properly and ardently would work for her and prevent her public embarrassment all these would cause. She has got various legal remedies too which she could work on both before and after publishing of the photos. On the first instance, she would claim to have asked his ex-boyfriend to delete the said photos and believed this had been done after he gave her his assurance. The photos, without her information, were sent to Katy Perry and then to TMV where she later realized they were to be published. At least for the purposes of verification of the source, and on the basis of humane grounds, she would be consulted and in a way involved in this malicious and destructive process. She could also appeal to the legal process using the copyright laws, which could also give her some reprieve regarding the whole scenario. According to the copyright laws, which clearly states that ownership to an idea or material is invoked the minute it is created or formed, it gives therefore Taylor the right of ownership of the said photos, and publishing the same without seeking her consent would contravene these laws. Exceptions are always provided in a particular law and the Courts, in some instances have permitted injunctions against publication of copyrighted photos, texts and images, most of which are prior restraints. As opposed to cases that involve the privacy rights of public figures, Taylor could also be on the offensive and argue that hers would be highly offensive, and this would be considering a reasonable person. This would be in line with the invasion of privacy act, and once this offensiveness would be proven, she could be let off the hook. She could also sue TMV after the alleged publishing of the photos, and demand for payment to the damages caused to her person and carrier if prior restraint fails. . Read More