TMZ reports that Jennifer Lawrence may have hit an obstacle in her fight to get her nude photos removed from the Internet.

Her attorney sent a letter to a porn site demanding the photos be removed because she owns the copyright. The website, however, said that some of the photos were not taken by Lawrence. That means that the copyright would be held by whoever actually took the photos. They want proof of Lawrence's copyright or the name of the person who took the photos.

Read more at http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/334041#sq4K121Px2diCGTL.99

Omg how petty are they

Ha!

That sucks.

What are they fighting for? They're on the internet forever... That's how it works. You're not going to be fixing anything...

So what's the site, so we can keep tabs and stuff.

This is actually 100% valid. Anytime a picture is taken, the photographer has the rights to it with exception only to cases where it was taken without the knowledge or consent of the person or establishment. The law has upheld this in cases of ex -revenge photo sharing, so I don't see why it'd grant a special case here.

BUT WHAT'S THE SITE?!!

VladimirTStrife wrote:

This is actually 100% valid. Anytime a picture is taken, the photographer has the rights to it with exception only to cases where it was taken without the knowledge or consent of the person or establishment. The law has upheld this in cases of ex -revenge photo sharing, so I don't see why it'd grant a special case here.

What if the photos were taken on her phone or camera?

realt wrote:

VladimirTStrife wrote:

This is actually 100% valid. Anytime a picture is taken, the photographer has the rights to it with exception only to cases where it was taken without the knowledge or consent of the person or establishment. The law has upheld this in cases of ex -revenge photo sharing, so I don't see why it'd grant a special case here.

What if the photos were taken on her phone or camera?

It wouldn't make a difference. If they were different, mirrored shots or even something up close where she could claim she took them herself, the coupling of those things would give her enough to claim that she took them and pin a hard task on anyone attempting to prove otherwise, but the main shots where her entire body is included (even her hands) makes that pretty impossible to claim.

Rights to the photos though are protected under intellectual grounds though, so even if she owned the device that took them, it's still protected as belonging to the photographer since they 'created' it.

Asshole wrote:

BUT WHAT'S THE SITE?!!

Google it you fool

Damn, sucks for them.

VladimirTStrife wrote:

realt wrote:

VladimirTStrife wrote:

This is actually 100% valid. Anytime a picture is taken, the photographer has the rights to it with exception only to cases where it was taken without the knowledge or consent of the person or establishment. The law has upheld this in cases of ex -revenge photo sharing, so I don't see why it'd grant a special case here.

What if the photos were taken on her phone or camera?

It wouldn't make a difference. If they were different, mirrored shots or even something up close where she could claim she took them herself, the coupling of those things would give her enough to claim that she took them and pin a hard task on anyone attempting to prove otherwise, but the main shots where her entire body is included (even her hands) makes that pretty impossible to claim.

Rights to the photos though are protected under intellectual grounds though, so even if she owned the device that took them, it's still protected as belonging to the photographer since they 'created' it.

Isn't there still a possibility she could've been the one taking them - aren't there many cameras that can have a timer used before the picture is finally taken, allowing her to place the camera down before posing for the pics?

I agree with everything you've said and don't think she'd win the case anyway, but I believe that is definitely possible.

It's possible, sure, and she may even make that claim, but it's up to the courts to decide the validity. In a day and age where photography is so commonplace and at the ready, it could be hard to prove she did and I'm not certain whether this is a case where she'd need to prove as much or simply go unchallenged.

Simply put; don't take nudes with a device that's linked to the internet.

Meth wrote:

Simply put; don't take nudes with a device that's linked to the internet.

More simply put; and this only applies to ladies; don't take nudes at all unless you're sending them to me.