Internet privacy/How to get a solicitor involved (if necessary)

steel_spine

Hi there

Is anyone aware of what laws may exist to protect me in the following situation - I have a rarely used blog, which i have recently discovered someone has taken photos from and used them on an insulting, possibly even defamatory website of theirs (not porn - these are just headshots).The photos are a) easily identifiable as me, b) not taken by the person who is using them (I took them) and c) consent was not looked for nor given. They're not directly hotlinked to my blog so I can't just break the link on them - they've actually uploaded them to their site.
I am living in Ireland but I believe the site is USA hosted.
Are there any laws that exist to force them to take these photographs and if possible the link to my blog down? I have emailed the site owner, but given the nature of the site, and the fact they have a gleeful 'hate mail' section, I don't see that going far.
If I need to get a solicitor involved in this, my next question is how do I go about getting one? That may sound like a dumb question, but I've never needed a solicitor before and I don't think my dad has one either - he's back in Scotland anyway while I'm in Galway.
What do you do - just ask for a consultation. And how do you know who is good/what prices are? (I'm a skintish student - I want these pics down but I can't afford to go after them if it'll cost a fortune)

Many Thanks

Victor

Practical advice - find out who is hosting the website and drop them an e-mail along hte breach of copyright / hate-mail lines.

Tom Young

Yep - There are procedures generally adhered to called N&T or Notice and Takedown. These procedures apply when there is a valid libel/defamation. In addition there is an act called the DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this act requires the host to remove copyright content in the US immediately on receipt of such a letter.

In general terms, the protections are going require some form of letter in the first instance demanding N&T and then further action would be through the courts, which is where it get expensive. Generally there are injunctions issued for such infringements of image and copyright materials.

To answer your questions directly:

1. No, there is nothing particular to protect your rights over the Internet;
2. You might need to make sure the suspect has not got access publicly to the pictures or anyone else for that matter;
3. A) and C) are valid on the basis that they are not available in public as mentioned in 2. above;
4. I mentioned the levers available internationally above, N&T or DMCA letter;
5. Go and contact the host also, tell them there is a copyright infringement in addition to contacting the owner of the blog; and
6. I recommend getting a solicitor who specialises in these matters.

Blog owners are not immune from suit (or unveiling to reveal a perceived privacy) as we have seen in the UK in the NightJack (The Owner of a Blog v Times Newspapers [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB)) case and in addition there is a finger print left no matter where one goes on line.

You might be well advised to look at the hosts code of conduct for reporting context which is illicit, illegal or infringing the US DMCA.

I've been involved in a number of DCMA and N&T procedures and generally users can resolve them, without having to go along the lines of court.

I wish you luck.

Tom

steel_spine

Victor wrote: »

Practical advice - find out who is hosting the website and drop them an e-mail along hte breach of copyright / hate-mail lines.

Thanks, but as I have said above - I have already done this, but I seriously doubt I'm gonna get any joy - the guy who runs this gets his kicks from annoying people if site content is anything to go by. I need to find out if/how to force him to remove said pics if possible

Edit: Sorry, I just noticed you said who HOSTs the site rather than who put it up. I'll give them a try thanks

Tom Young

The above is only practical advice and applies outside of this jurisdiction in any event.

If you get no traction from practical advice, you'll need a solicitor.

Tom

Tom Young

I should mention, that a ruling in the UK earlier this month removes libel defences of justification if the article is cached online and non-contemporaneous.

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB) - 2nd October 2009 per Tugendhat LJ.

"The failure to remove the article from the website, or to attach to the articles published on The Times website a suitable qualification, cannot possibly be described as responsible journalism," said Mr Justice Tugendhat in his ruling. "It is not in the public interest that there should continue to be recorded on the internet the questions as to [Flood's] honesty which were raised in 2006, and it is not fair to him."

The online version of the article carried a warning in red capital letters which read: "Warning this article is subject to legal dispute. It should not be relied on or repeated". The Court said, though, that this did not exonerate it of responsibility for the defamation contained in the piece.

The Times accepted that the article was defamatory but claimed a defence of 'qualified privilege'. This is awarded when an article is on a matter of public interest; the defamatory statement makes a real contribution to the story; and the steps taken to gather the information were responsible and fair, according to a summary in the ruling of a case involving former Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds.

and further

The defence of qualified privilege succeeds in respect of the print publication and website publications made up to 5 September 2007. It fails in respect of the website publication made after 5 September 2007.

No orders have been made yet in relation to the penalty or Orders as against the infringing publication.

steel_spine

Interesting - well thanks for the advice, I have mailed the site owner and the hosting company so we'll see what comes of that. I would hope it doesn't require a solicitor as I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to that