A guy has been sued in Federal court under a federal law that creates a cause of action for sharing nekkid pics.

Girl was married to a cop, but apparently "he wasn't paying enough attention to her." Guy and girl were longtime friends, going way back, but never dated. He was not married at the time. She sends him three nekkid pics for "validation." No mention of him not sharing them with others, but that's probably implied. And the federal statute says that's not a defense.

Time goes by and he gets married and has kids. He was on a site where dudes share pics of girls they know. it's organized by State and people start threads asking for specific locales. So you might see people you know. Yes, he's dumb, and you can guess what happens - he shares her pics. Somehow it gets back to her. She confronts him, he apologizes (admission - yikes) and agrees to delete the pics.

She's sued him for $120k in federal court, plus attorney fees. She gets to sue him as "Jane Doe." He is a blue collar dude making a bit less than $100k a year. No assets of any value. There is a decision in one Federal Court that this NONdischargeable in bankruptcy, so that may not be an option.

If you are on the jury, what do you think is a fair verdict? It's not "revenge porn" but just sharing of pics (first of all she shouldn't have shared because she was married) but he shouldn't have shared either. As a juror, what do you think is a fair settlement?

My opinion, if you give someone pics of yourself and there is no written and agreed upon agreement to keep them private, then it's fair game. If you don't want pics of you out there, then don't take them. End of story.

i'm mildly torn.

from a moral standpoint, throw the book at him.

from a logical standpoint, sending nudes out to somebody you're not married to is scummy behavior so don't be surprised when he does something scummy with it.

from a legal standpoint, unless there was a spoken or written understanding to not share those photos, i think she'd be SOL.

It is revenge porn. Don't share intimate pictures with others that weren't meant for others. It isn't that ****ing hard not to.

Not to say the woman isn't a moron, but it is the definition of revenge porn

I'd have to see the pics before rendering judgement.

GeorgiAg said:

---

A guy has been sued in Federal court under a federal law that creates a cause of action for sharing nekkid pics.

Girl was married to a cop, but apparently "he wasn't paying enough attention to her." Guy and girl were longtime friends, going way back, but never dated. He was not married at the time. She sends him three nekkid pics for "validation." No mention of him not sharing them with others, but that's probably implied. And the federal statute says that's not a defense.

Time goes by and he gets married and has kids. He was on a site where dudes share pics of girls they know. it's organized by State and people start threads asking for specific locales. So you might see people you know. Yes, he's dumb, and you can guess what happens - he shares her pics. Somehow it gets back to her. She confronts him, he apologizes (admission - yikes) and agrees to delete the pics.

She's sued him for $120k in federal court, plus attorney fees. She gets to sue him as "Jane Doe." He is a blue collar dude making a bit less than $100k a year. No assets of any value. There is a decision in one Federal Court that this NONdischargeable in bankruptcy, so that may not be an option.

If you are on the jury, what do you think is a fair verdict? It's not "revenge porn" but just sharing of pics (first of all she shouldn't have shared because she was married) but he shouldn't have shared either. As a juror, what do you think is a fair settlement?

---

Only a complete moron would send nudes thinking they are private. Nothing you do on the internet is private. Greasy of the dude to upload the pics but ******ed of the chick to send them in the first place. Stop being 304s people.

Tough call. She sent him the pics out of the blue while still married to another guy. Seems like she'd have less expectation of privacy since they weren't intimate at the time. But what he did is really crappy and should be punished in some way. Probably not $120K, but something.

Naked is when you don't have any clothes on.

Nekkid is when you don't have any clothes on and you're up to something.

-Lewis Grizzard

Man I miss Lewis Grizzard.

His book titles were awesome. - Elvis is Dead and I don't Feel So Good Myself.

There are tons of art museums proudly displaying revenge porn... or maybe they have the signed consent forms from all the nakked boobs filed away somewhere.

Your consent was given when the pic was taken assuming you were knowingly filmed. There should be no expectation of privacy. Doubly so if you took the pics yourself and sent them.

Spotted Ag said:

---

My opinion, if you give someone pics of yourself and there is no written and agreed upon agreement to keep them private, then it's fair game. If you don't want pics of you out there, then don't take them. End of story.

---

That used to happen a lot with photographers looking for models. Model later on gets acting gigs and the pictures are sold and are published. Absent a written agreement, voluntary conduct in allowing the pictures to be taken and then retained, meaning they can be used in any way, no recovery.

She had the pictures taken, she sends them to someone else without an agreement. The recipient can do whatever they wish to do.

Explaining to his current wife why he still had naked pictures of other women was probably awkward, however.

What site is this? I need to make sure I'm not on it.

If there is no agreement between the parties, you don't get to complain when they get out. If you steal them or get them from someone else and then share them, it's your ass.

a key difference is that the models had pictures taken by third party photographer, who owns the copyrights to those photos.

i assume the lady here took "selfies" and didn't have a third party take them. could be wrong, but that likely what happen I'd guess.

OP's FW cooking up this thread title

Quote:

---

If there is no agreement between the parties, you don't get to complain when they get out.

---

maybe in theory, but thats not the law.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If there is no agreement between the parties, you don't get to complain when they get out.

---

maybe in theory, but thats not the law.

---

I agree with you.

BMX Bandit said:

---

a key difference is that the models had pictures taken by third party photographer, who owns the copyrights to those photos.

i assume the lady here took "selfies" and didn't have a third party take them. could be wrong, but that likely what happen I'd guess.

---

Yeah, but if I'm sitting on the jury, I'm leaning toward the position that she willingly gave the photos to a person she was not married to, nor intimate with, so her "rights" to protect distribution of the photos are assumed to be granted to the person she gave them to - absent any agreements to the contrary.

He has no special or intimate relationship with her, and she sends him naked pics for "validation". Why should he not assume she has sent those pics to many people?

Granted, it was stupid on his part, and he's demonstrated he's not friend-worthy; but, I'm having a hard time hitting him with the legal responsibility of her original stupid action.

This many replies and no help.

Sorry he did not have permission to share

But I will need to see the pics to make a better decision on monetary damages

Geez GeorgiaAg you voted for Biden and now this!

you'd never make it on the jury as that opinion would come out in voir dire. (I'm not quarrelling with you, its certainly a reasonable position to have)

Teslag said:

---

What site is this? I need to make sure I'm not on it.

---

I had never heard of it before. Definitely not something you want to check out on a work computer. Or at least let IT know. I've had a few sites like that I "had" to visit for ... um ... work research.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you'd never make it on the jury as that opinion would come out in voir dire. (I'm not quarrelling with you, its certainly a reasonable position to have)

---

Frankly, I would be supremely disappointed if in the miracle I was picked for a jury and it was a stupid case like this.

depends on how she looks.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you'd never make it on the jury as that opinion would come out in voir dire. (I'm not quarrelling with you, its certainly a reasonable position to have)

---

Frankly, I would be supremely disappointed if in the miracle I was picked for a jury and it was a stupid case like this.

---

Would the jury be presented said pictures during the trial?

BQ78 said:

---

Geez GeorgiaAg you voted for Biden and now this!

---

I may have had a temporary lapse of reason with Biden, but I'm not dumb enough to share nekkid pics.

I reentered the dating scene in 2015. Definitely a new world out there! That wasn't an issue in the 80s and 90s.

Parents, tell your kids not to share pics like this. Also tell them, if you do, don't have your face and genitals in the same pic!!!!!

Teslag said:

---

What site is this? I need to make sure I'm not on it.

---

You really trust Eastern European hookers to keep that stuff secret?

Pookers said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you'd never make it on the jury as that opinion would come out in voir dire. (I'm not quarrelling with you, its certainly a reasonable position to have)

---

Frankly, I would be supremely disappointed if in the miracle I was picked for a jury and it was a stupid case like this.

---

Would the jury be presented said pictures during the trial?

---

I would assume so, since they are the subject matter of the suit.

GeorgiAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Geez GeorgiaAg you voted for Biden and now this!

---

I may have had a temporary lapse of reason with Biden, but I'm not dumb enough to share nekkid pics.

I reentered the dating scene in 2015. Definitely a new world out there! That wasn't an issue in the 80s and 90s.

Parents, tell your kids not to share pics like this. Also tell them, if you do, don't have your face and genitals in the same pic!!!!!

---

For clarification, you mean your face and your OWN genitals, right?

Pookers said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you'd never make it on the jury as that opinion would come out in voir dire. (I'm not quarrelling with you, its certainly a reasonable position to have)

---

Frankly, I would be supremely disappointed if in the miracle I was picked for a jury and it was a stupid case like this.

---

Would the jury be presented said pictures during the trial?

---

I imagine they'd be redacted but give an idea of what was shown. I haven't seen the pics because they were deleted.

So stupid. The woman shouldn't be a ****. The man never should have trusted a ****. Seems like an opportunity for both parties to grow the hell up and stop being idiots. I wouldn't vote in either one of their favors.

What is the boards opinion on impersonating a D1 athlete to entice girls to send you their naked photos?

Apparently okay as long as you change user names and stop using google forms to unwittingly get personal info on others.