Lara should end up owning this company when it's all over.

i've been a member of deviantart for a few years, and that "no minors" policy is not something i remember -- must be a recent change. i can remember a number of controversies over material that might be seen by minors. and i certainly remember a time when MOST of the members there seemed to be underage. (and if i saw another furry, i was going to stab my eyes out)

frankly, i've seen so many things get stolen from deviantart that this doesn't surprise me in the least. it's too high profile.

just one more reason to get rid of my account, i guess.

Of course the company should get all that's coming to them, what with using a 14 year old on their cover, using it without permission, etc.

My favorite part of the president response was the "well we're glad you want us to take the picture off, your ugly face wasn't selling dvds anyway! so there!" Comedy.

I can see why a lawyer would be hesitant about dealing with someone outside the US, let alone a 17 year old. The logistics of meeting face to face, and assuring payment are problematic. What if the lawyer takes the case on little to no money, does all the work and then you don't pay? Then that lawyer has to traverse the foreign legal system to sue you personally. Big hassle.

Lastly, it is not like her face is recognizable in that picture. If she hadn't made an issue of it, no one would ever know, outside of a few people who might have stumbled across both her pictures and the porn box. Yeah it sucks, but it isn't THAT big a deal. The company has already agreed to stop and unless it sold tons of copies, which is very unlikely, there won't be much money to go after. But perhaps being 17, she feels that the world revolves around her. Welcome to life.

Generally, a work is in the public domain if it was published:

By the federal government, at any time.
Between 1964-1977 without a copyright notice.
Between 1923-1963 with a copyright notice, if the copyright was not renewed when the initial term expired.
Between 1923-1963 without a copyright notice.
Before 1923.

A U.S. work has copyright protection if it was published - From 1978 - on; Between 1964-1977 with a copyright notice; Between 1923-1963 with a copyright notice, if the copyright was renewed.

If you don't have permission, you're infringing.

These are just general comments, find a lawyer who can help preferrably for free (I would look to the criminal law).

Moreover, realize advice given by people who are on here probably shouldn't be taken seriously, after all a well expressed opinion can just be full of it - Find a lawyer.

Criticisms are welcome.

Yes she does.
I'm surprised she can't find a lawyer who would take this on.

The people who did this are going to the Special Hell.

Minor or adults, as long as I've been on the Internets, 10+ years, I've always known that anything on the internet not behind some sort of password or access lock has no expectation of privacy.

I see she had some sort of marking on the pic, but still. You have to know that people will steal them anyway. Good reason I try not to ever give my real name or upload pics of me "unlocked." Kudos to the guy above who doesn't upload his kids pics. Although some places like Flickr which Consumerist uses does allow for uploading and filter locking pics. Then you can select who gets access to them.

@ukexpat:
It's the amusing effect of giving a person with only a third grade education the ability to read letters sent to him. I am kind of surprised the individual can read at all, at this rate.

Essentially, the image was not only blatantly copyrighted, but was then altered without the author's permission. For all of those comments above that say "now you'll think twice before posting pictures online", I'd say that she did all the necessary, possible, steps to prevent other people from using her art.

@palaste: Yes, it's that too.

And finally @palaste: has cut to the meat of the argument.

Sleazy Porno Guy's response was so nasty -- I'm willing to bet he was "on something" when he pounded his filthy fists on the keyboard.

And in response to a comment up there, there's nothing out of the ordinary for teenagers to have photos online. She did NOTHING wrong.

@doctor_cos:

Which "pornographic web site" are you referring to? If you are referring to deviantArt, you have obviously not gone to the site and looked past the first few pages [...]

I was replying to Kat (#c1546919), who was making the argument about the photo's creator having gone and posted it to a pornographic website. So, I decided it would be appropriate to dispute this claim as reasonably as possible. The success of my attempt not withstanding, my meaning wasn't to call DeviantArt a porno website, at all. lol.

As for "which" in general, I don't know. That's a question you should ask Kat, who initially posed the argument to begin with. Bwahahaha.

Let's make sure to place the blame where it belongs...with TVX "films"

@Crazytree:
You know what would be awesome? As a Plaintiff's Attorney, rather than fighting with those in the attorney game; provide some actual knowledge to refute the claims of the other that you state is lower in acumen than yourself in this case.

It could probably help "Lara" gain a little perspective on the matter to boot. And god knows, she could probably use some right now.

ooh, internets lawyer scuffle! I'm not going to doubt your respective credentials (as I have no real reason to), but please make sure to use many technical terms and strange code numbers in your next several responses. Penal codes make me HOTTT.

also: pix plz k thx

She wasn't happy about that.

I'm a Plaintiff's attorney in Los Angeles, and a pretty good one at that. Or at least that's what I've been told by my colleagues that I have litigated with.

Your analysis is poor and you have little grasp of the facts. Hustler AKA Flynt Publishing has a very large facility at the intersection of Wilshire & La Cienega here in LA that I drive by almost daily on the way to my office.

Your knowledge of the very delicate balance that exists between the LA porn industry and Deborah Yang, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. Go look it up and educate yourself about DOJ intervention and prosecutions against this industry in the wake of John Ashcroft's directives targeting the industry.

It is abundantly clear to me that your opinions are worthless, and your assertion that you somehow know what you are talking about because you claim to be a lawyer is laughable. Both of us know how many worthless lawyers are cranked out every year in this country.

Plus this would also fall under right of privacy statutes in many states where your likeness may not be used by another for any business purpose without your express permission.

Let's make sure to place the blame where it belongs...with TVX "films"

2257 does pertain to secondary producers as of right now. See Gonzalez v. Free Speech Coalition for ongoing litigation.

It's a question of copyright infringement. Judges are awarding a lot of money for willful infringement which this appears to be.

PLEASE don't judge the entire adult industry over the words of one pathetic moron with no brains or morals. Not all of us are in the same league with him and almost all of us, I'd say, think he's a disgusting pig for using stolen content.

There are several highly qualified adult industry attorneys who would, most likely, be happy to take on this case.

In that case, wouldn't THEY have to get involved here?

Just curious.

Anyway, she's got quite a talent (judging from her web page)

Also, photos, content, or images posted by individuals on the internet on such sites (including Myspace and the like) are AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted by the author unless otherwise specified. So watermark or no, there is NO QUESTION about copyright violation here.

But yeah, nail that porn company.

I'm still only 17

It's a reasonably sure bet she isn't over 18 years old currently.

As for joining up to a pornographic website while still a minor, it's certainly possible; but some how I don't buy that a person would post a photograph of a non-pornographic nature, that's clearly an artistic portrait on a website of a pornographic nature.

That's not to say it isn't possible, but I would consider someone doing it highly unlikely. Pornography tends to tarnish your reputation in a good many fields, so someone who is an amateur or professional photographer doing it, they might as well just bow out as they would do it, lest they ruin potential future work prospects for themselves.

From my point of view, though, my guts telling me this violates a great deal of laws in the US, and I can't help but think it skates into child pornography territory in spite of the lack of nudity, considering the association of a minor, who's image was used without consent, with intent to solicit and distribute at premium sale of pornography materials.

One could potentially call upon the hounds of hell that protect child exploitation; I am sure they would have a field day over this. Attack the heart.

I'M SURE BY THE END OF THE MONTH YOUR FACE WILL BE HISTORY.

@LawyerontheDL: you're looking at this case backwards. she is not going to be able to cough up any type of retainer, however at least one of these Defendants is going to be a multi-million dollar company with easy-to-find assets. I would hate to be Defense counsel in a case where a PORN COMPANY is being accused of using your UNDERAGE client's photo without permission. this has "easy settlement" written all over it.

I would take this on contingency in a heartbeat.

Don't know how it works across international boundaries, though.

For those who can't believe she was fourteen at the time, you clearly have not encountered any of today's teenagers. Many of them look surprisingly mature.

For that matter, who the heck is still paying for porn these days?

She should be asking for compensation for use of her work, not a portion of the proceeds. (And anything else she can get out of them, too.)

In any case, I do think it's important to nip this kind of thing in the bud. It's getting all too common, and the only way to really stop it is to go after every single person who is doing it, and make them pay. A lot of us benefit from creators licensing their work free for non-commercial purposes. If we capitulate to those who abuse the availability and violate those licensing terms, none of us will have those options anymore. (I still believe that spam could have been curtailed back in the day if so many people hadn't thrown up their hands and given up.)

A quick search on google shows a very conservative Forbes article valueing adult video sales alone at up to 1.8 BILLION annually.

I'm right next to Texas. I might make a few calls, this is just sick.

if sony did this then it could be actionable but chasing down some pornographer in texas who probably lives in a PO box seems seems chancy at best, especially from overseas.

she should probably write this one off.

There are 2 issues: 1) as the photographer and creator of the copyrigthed work, she would be entitled to damages based on the market value of the photography and the revenues it helped earn for the porno guys.

2) as the subject of the photo, she never agreed to have her image associated with a porno film - that would be a whole separate invasion of privacy issue.

*** and if she won these claims in a court, the defendant could be responsible fo all of HER legal fees.

Her mistake was in contacting the slob directly, she should have written a formal letter through a lawyer to begin with, threatening legal action, which may have been resolved with a monetarty settlement.

With his ALL CAPS and horrible grammar, he's trying to blow her off, although the response could be a clear admission of guilt.

Ok, I'll attempt to clear up some of the confusion regarding a Texas cause of action.

First, the primary cause of action Lara may attempt to recover on is an intentional tort of invasion of the right of privacy for misappropriation of her image. The elements in Texas are as follows: 1) There must be an identification of the person claiming misappropriation of his or her identity; and 2) the appropriation must involve a tortious use of a person's name or likeness. Lara has both elements here.

Lara may recover money damages, "measured by the value of defendant's unjust enrichment." Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 335.06. Exemplary damages may also be available. Interesting, in Texas (and most of the U.S.), invasion of privacy for misappropriation is viewed as a property interest, hence the "value of unjust enrichment" language.

@Patchmonkey regarding the "horrid tort caps in Texas." The Texas Tort Reform Act has a lot of major problems, and I agree that it is a "horrid" statute. But, it does not limit the recovery of damages in an intentional tort, and does not even come into play in this case.

@those who are advocating criminal action, I don't believe that action will succeed, but I'm not a criminal expert. My understanding on child porn law is that because Lara herself is not pictured in a sexual act, it is not technically child pornography. However, like I mentioned, my knowledge of the law in the area of child pornography law is limited.

Regarding Lara's attempts to retain a lawyer in Texas. As mentioned in the facts, Lara states the lawyers she has spoken with require a £50,000 retainer. I have a feeling there is more to the story here. The attorney(s) must have stated a reason for the high retainer fee. Someone mentioned the low amount of damages. This is a reason not take a case-but only if the attorney is working on a contingency basis. There are plenty of attorneys in Texas who work at an hourly rate.

I suspect the high retainer requirement has to do with an arm's length relationship with an overseas, minor-age client. Like everyone else, lawyers are susceptible to online scams and are hesitant about taking on an unknown individual client residing in another nation. But again, that's just a guess.

I enjoyed the Texas Young Lawyers comment, but I don't think this story is newsworthy enough for an attorney to pick up on the cheap. I recommend starting with the county bar association in the county in which this company is located. Or use a service such as findlaw.com. Find a member who does personal injury or tort law (that won't be hard). I prefer to deal with smaller firms and solo people because fees are usually lower, but that's a personal preference. If the lawyer won't take the case, ask the lawyer for a referral. You should find someone willing to take it soon. If not, there's an unknown issue here.

Best of luck, Lara. Not all of us Texans are scumbags like company (just a high percentage of us).

I am not an attorney, but my instinct is that even idf her photo was just on the cover of an adult film, she would fall under those guidelines. She may not be able to get money out of them, but she could get them shut down. She should contact the Texas Attorney General. I'm sure that Texas probably isn't exactly porn friendly.

asl s2r

That email is from the PRESIDENT of the company? God I`d hate to see the other workers...

I love the content of the email though, "lol u r obviusly uglee so da dvd floped lol we did u a favor by putin ur piktur hur!11"

I hope everything works out for her though.

My advice for Lara is actually to try to contact Larry Flynt, tell her story, and see if he would be willing to have Hustler's legal team take up her case. It would be a great way for Flynt and Hustler to get goodwill and show that there is honor and decency in the pornographic profession.

"To register as a member of the Service or purchase products, you must be 18 years or lawfully permitted to enter into and form contracts under applicable law. In no event may minors submit Content to the Service. You agree that the information that you provide to us upon registration, at the time of purchase, and at all other times will be true"
So the creeps at TVX films would be able that she lied about her age and they were honestly mistaken.

Contact the texas Attorney General's office and the local DA where they are headquartered.

I do know that there was some law passed a few years back to crack down on underage actresses in "adult situations" that made penalties for using underage actresses and models much more severe. I don't remember what it's called officially since that isn't remotely the kind of photography my company does but I did see it in a trade publication.

Of course, I'm no expert here.

You are absolutely correct. If I had not wanted my picture to be available, I would not have put it out there. I do understand the consequences, many innocent people do not.

My motto: "You do it to yourself"

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/attention-pornographers/lara-is-not-a-porn-star-263775.php)

The original photo of Lara was located on a free adult shareware site this past January, and after discussing the error and speaking to her - it was immediately replaced.

The websites she mentions in her rant (http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/13087896/?offset=50) still feature the older cover, and they have not changed that image -but are selling the film with the revised cover - which can be seen at..

http://www.tvxfilms.com/sales/images/jpgs/BodyMagic.jpg

If you have any questions whatsoever, or would like to speak to the ownerat TVX personally to verify this information, - do contact.

TVX Films - Attn: Bob • (888) 877-9993

That's bizarre and clearly incorrect. Even in Texas, invasion of privacy still is an actionable tort.

I suppose that the horrid tort caps in Texas could have something to do with this...

What can you do?