Because otherwise, it’s “copying” a copyrighted image, and that’s not permissible. The difference between the two is that when you’re out in public, you don’t have any right to control your image so as to interfere with the copyright of someone who takes a photo of you. Whereas, when you post your own photos to Flickr, you control the copyright and can prevent unauthorized copying of the image.

But of course, none of the images at issue were original photos of the posters. All of them were grabbed from copyrighted sources, and when the copyright owners asked Ciolli to do something about the links, he refused.

You raise some great points. I don’t know about a cause of action against Ciolli, who did not host any images, only failed to delete links. Hopefully, if I posted a link to a Steven Colbert bit on YouTube, Viacom would simply have Google delete the bit rather than try to proceed against me. Presumably the women could contact the hosting sites, as apparently they did, to remove the photos.
There is a good cause of action against the actual copyists, who I will call the ImageShackers. To proceed against the ImageShackers, the young women whose photos were copied would first have to show they owned the copyright. Because, usually, some one else takes pictures of you, that some one else holds the copyright. Thus the photographers would have had to assign the copyright to the young women (or give them an exclusive license). That plus comparing the copies should be sufficient to show infringement.
The ImageShackers (those who copied the students’ photos and put them on ImageShack) would then claim fair use.
1. Purpose and character of the use. I think the ImageShackers best argument is that their use was non commercial, and determining who were the best looking law students was newsworthy. Bstu’s counterargument is actually reasonable — that the purpose was merely for some sleazoids to get off on objectifying female law students. The ImageShackers would probably lose on this.
2. Nature of the work. The Image Shackers would argue that being posted to the web for all to see made the photos published. Although visual works enjoy a high degree of protection, the photos were not particularly creative, being merely snapshots and not exercises in composition and lighting.
The counterargument would be that photos were not published, merely made available for the intended audience: the women’s friends and family The women would probably lose.
3. Amount and importance of the copied part in relation to the work as a whole: The ImageShackers lose on this one, because they copied the entire photo, unless the thumbnail argument from Arriba Soft applies (taking no more than is necessary can mean the whole work.)
4. Effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work.
The ImageShackers will win, because there is no market for the work, unless the women decide to authorize their own contest.
In conclusion, I think the sleaze factor could well outweigh all the other factors and negate fair use.

Cope.

The issue was one’s right to privacy in one’s image on the public streets. The article summarized two cases on the state of privacy law in New York State. Basically, in NYS your right to prevent people from taking your picture and using it is limited to trade and commercial uses. Moreover, your image can be sold as art, even if that use violates your religion. The first case, the one we’re talking about, so held. This case, although you claim it was later dismissed on procedural grounds, applied the rationale from several other NYS cases, which seemingly are still good law.

The case was one trial court’s opinion. I’m not “claiming” i was later dismissed on procedural grounds. It was. On appeal, the court dismissed it on procedural grounds. Only a minority of that court affirmed the constitutional arguement. Maybe the reasoning would ultimately hold up in court, but that hardly means a person could expect to have a case tossed out of hand. Implying that this is a settled legal question is misleading. It isn’t. A single trial court expressed an opinion and that opinion was not affirmed on appeal. I’m not “claiming” that. That’s what actually happened.

This still has little to do with the discussion, though, as there the standard was proving that the photograph represented art. I’m guessing a photo taking as a specific and publicly declared attempt to menance someone would not be seen that way. Which is really the problem with all your little “precidents”. They are, at best, tangentally related to the actual issues involved here. They lay out specific tests, not blanket legality. Those tests would surely not include the behavior actually at issue here. No, I don’t need to go to law school to realize that a court finding that a search engine provides a public service is different than a court finding that a lecherous effort to objectify unwilling subjects provides a public service.

Per the second case, under a newsworthiness exception, your image may be used against your will to illustrate an article if there was a real relationship between you and the subject of the article. Specifically, if you, a 14 yo girl, were falsely portrayed to be a drunken slut in an article on drunken sluts, your right to privacy would give you no relief.

What does this have to do with this discussion? Or, do you just love fantasizing about underage drunken “sluts”?

Basically, in NYS your right to prevent people from taking your picture and using it is limited to trade and commercial uses. Moreover, your image can be sold as art, even if that use violates your religion.

“Taking” meaning snapping your photo, right?

Because otherwise, it’s “copying” a copyrighted image, and that’s not permissible. The difference between the two is that when you’re out in public, you don’t have any right to control your image so as to interfere with the copyright of someone who takes a photo of you. Whereas, when you post your own photos to Flickr, you control the copyright and can prevent unauthorized copying of the image.

But of course, none of the images at issue were original photos of the posters. All of them were grabbed from copyrighted sources, and when the copyright owners asked Ciolli to do something about the links, he refused.

Dismissed on procedural grounds, so what’s your point here?

What was yours? You’re the one who brought up the case to prove a point. It was dismissed on procedural grounds, so how does that prove any point?

The issue was one’s right to privacy in one’s image on the public streets. The article summarized two cases on the state of privacy law in New York State. Basically, in NYS your right to prevent people from taking your picture and using it is limited to trade and commercial uses. Moreover, your image can be sold as art, even if that use violates your religion. The first case, the one we’re talking about, so held. This case, although you claim it was later dismissed on procedural grounds, applied the rationale from several other NYS cases, which seemingly are still good law.
Per the second case, under a newsworthiness exception, your image may be used against your will to illustrate an article if there was a real relationship between you and the subject of the article. Specifically, if you, a 14 yo girl, were falsely portrayed to be a drunken slut in an article on drunken sluts, your right to privacy would give you no relief.

I’ve already responded to your misleading remarks about the other case you tried to cite. Repeating your misleading remarks isn’t worth further response.

Let me know when you go to law school, pal.

However, even if it’s public info, the fact that it’s coupled with legitimate anger/resent from people suggesting bad things should happen to Jill is enough to bring it into the realm of posts that I think Ciolli should have removed (even assuming you support his general “no moderation” policy).

Again, the problem with his policy is that it was NOT a “no moderation” policy. It was a “moderation if you out my friends, mockery for everyone else” policy. Two different things.

Interesting how you admit that people posting identifying information about the women at their law schools was a bad and potentially dangerous thing, but still think Ciolli’s “protection only for my buddies” moderation policy was perfectly fine and no reason at all for a potential employer to question his judgment.

Dismissed on procedural grounds, so what’s your point here?

What was yours? You’re the one who brought up the case to prove a point. It was dismissed on procedural grounds, so how does that prove any point?

I’ve already responded to your misleading remarks about the other case you tried to cite. Repeating your misleading remarks isn’t worth further response. Moving on…

I think that people suggesting that bad things should happen to Ciolli are “threatening” him as much as posters suggesting that bad things should happen to Jill were “threatening” her.

You ignored zuzu’s complaint. You insist on drawing a comparison but you have no justified that comparison. Who is making violent threats toward Ciolli? What were the threats? What circumstances were made around them? How many were made? You assert a comparison. Justify it.

A threat with identifying information attached is a more dangerous threat than a random one, because it gives people the ability to act on the threat.

I agree. And I also agree that this type of post is the kind that is the most damning for Ciolli.

I’m not aware of the specific nature of these posts and what info they contained. If it’s public info, it’s not as bad to do nothing, IMO. However, even if it’s public info, the fact that it’s coupled with legitimate anger/resent from people suggesting bad things should happen to Jill is enough to bring it into the realm of posts that I think Ciolli should have removed (even assuming you support his general “no moderation” policy).

To be clear, I think that people suggesting that bad things should happen to Ciolli are “threatening” him as much as posters suggesting that bad things should happen to Jill were “threatening” her.

Here’s the difference you’re ignoring: the people who were “threatening” Ciolli here did not post his home address or his class schedule.

Are you really so obtuse that you don’t understand the difference between, say, “I hate that skank Paris Hilton, I hope she rots in jail” and “I hate that skank Paris Hilton, who lives as 14567 Sunset Blvd., Apt. 32A”?

A threat with identifying information attached is a more dangerous threat than a random one, because it gives people the ability to act on the threat. Any sensible person knows that … unless they’re highly invested in defending the people doing the threats, of course.

I guess that you think that the fact that Dr. Bernard Slepian’s home address was posted on a major anti-abortion website had absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that he was shot and killed at his home, right? It was just an empty threat.