Here in Brazil there was a famous similar case. A Clinic's outdoor showed an image of one of their dentists, saying something like: "Our professionals are the best in the market" followed by some of this guy's titles.
The dentist sued the clinic for using his image without consent.
Even though the clinic was showing a good image of him (differently from the "pole-dancer"), he unwillingly became famous, and that annoyed him.
Well, those websites could easily be sued since they have no rights over the pictures, and so can the paparazzi. If these guys payed for the pictures, they should sue the photographer or whoever sold them to them and get their 5000$ back. She has nothing to do with that.
these guys probably should make a suit against the site, although the site wasnt disclosed and no details of any sort of authorization or anything came up so who knows. either way theres probably a trail of bread crumbs leading to somebody that these guys could probably find. theyre only half at fault i think
"Her on that flyer made us a lot more than 5000 dollars so if that's what it costs then so be it" lol $WAG! bet he wouldn't have said that before she made her decision lol
IMO, If you put a picture on the internet, you're opening it up to everyone, and they're allowed to use it. Putting it up on the internet is basically opening the gates for people to use it. IF SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT DON'T PUT THEM UP! Sure if she individually did not put them up, and the photographer put them up without her consent, then that is another story.
@1ambience1 Try copying Mickey Mouse's image copying and pasting it on flyers and posting it all over the word...you'll be sued in a heartbeat. It is not their image they don't "own" her body.
If you get photos like those taken of you, and you specifically sign a waver saying that the photographer owns the photos, and then the photographer puts the photos in public domain, then somebody can use that photo of you for whatever they want.
@1ambience1 Like anyone who would be kicked out of university for taking someone else's work and calling it your own, you will be sued for taking someone else's body and making profit off of it. You don't take someone's identity and make it your own period. She has the freedom to do what she pleases and still own it.
@1ambience1 This is why models exist because they sign agreements and are okay with their identity being used for advertising. They also get paid for that. This woman did not give any permission.
Regardless of who is legally wrong or right, the plaintiff says she didn't like how she was portrayed in the flyer, but the picture the guys used was the exact same one that she posed for originally. They didn't change anything about how tasteful or tasteless the picture was. So why should she be embarrassed. The pictures were already public on the internet, and they were the same pictures.
also, that "she turns out to be 14" thing is completely irrelevant...judy reeeeeally dropped the ball on this one...it's surprising, honestly. usually she's right on or at least pretty close....this one was waaaaaay off though.
@Kasparovwannabe actually, she wasn't. not just with her examples...but i mean, as the law states, if a picture is made public with no copyright or legal rights of any kind attached to it or the person/set in it, you can use it for any purpose, personal or commercial, unless stated otherwise. it was on a picture sharing site in the public domain section of the site, the photographer had permission, according to their own statements, to put them online...so how was judy right?
and it's not "exactly the same" like judy says...she has a signed contract with the network and her agent...i know that in that contract, it mentions using her likeness, image or voice...now, that makes it a completely different situation than the lady's considering she had no contract, nor any way to prove what her intentions for taking the pics were in the first place. and legally, you can use any pic or video you take or record in public of anyone...so that example was faulty too.
eh....i love judy...but she was off on this one. unless the lady had legal rights (copyrights) to her images, anybody can use them for any reason...especially if they're on a public domain site...but, like most tv judges, they don't always go by the law, i mean, it's civil court..."law" clearly doesn't play much part in these courts. it's more just what the judge feels or thinks...which hardly makes it "court" at that point, but whatever.
@JSullivanMusic19 Well I know what you're saying, but you can't divorce your likeness from a picture of yourself, copyright protected or not. It wasn't the legal image file that got them in trouble, it was her likeness, which you need contractual, definitive rights to use someone's likeness... even (and especially) in cases involving super model celebs. The reason some magazines get away with it is by playing the reporter loophole. This was a case of retail advertising. Judge is right.
@aarossell but my point is, in giving her photographer the right to use her likeness and image publicly, she divorced her likeness in itself...so, judge is wrong. if she were going to sue anyone, it shouldn't have been those 2...it should have been the photographer or even the site they got it from...
Then the jackass says "she exploited herself" but he's not using the word at that point the way JJ is using it. You don't get to use someone else's image for commercial purposes without their permission, THAT is the exploitation. So these morons that say "she was on the internet" so what? Now suddenly none of us are supposed to have images around anywhere, or someone might misuse them and it's our fault? Fact is, they are blinded by the sex aspect of this. It's the same as a school photo.
@Degenerate999 so you're not even listening to what she's saying. I was going to say the same thing, do you think that I could use Judge Judy's image to promote my business because her image was on the internet? You're a moron.
@IndifferentSky Your just fucking stupid im gonna bother wasting my time on idiots like you. She put them on the internet. Therefore it was STUPID of her to not think that something like this could happen. Then she cries about it like a baby when it happens, because of her own stupid mistake. When she put them on the internet, she no longer has control of what happens with the photos. Don't even respond i will not read it. I feel i will lose braincells reading your stupidity.....
@Degenerate999 No the photographer put them online, Did you even watch the video? Watch it then try to tell me different, Some people are so stupid lol
That's what I said. If the website legally obtained her image, it means she gave permission for it to be sold and she perjured herself under oath. In this case, the defendants can either sue the site, who will sue the girl, or subpoena the needed evidence from the site and sue the girl. As of this time, there is no evidence that the girl is lying, and no evidence that the site has the right to sell her image under that particular copyright law, and the defendants had no right to use her image.
Judge Judy had already stated several times that she is not "net savy," and this case proves her lack of knowledge relating to "IP" laws.
The fact is, when you visit an authentic vector graphics website, the images are specifically sold "royalty free" for personal or commercial purposes. This is very clear on the websites. JJ is right if they just "stole" the image, but the image came from a legitimate source.
But unfortunately for the Defendant, the judge doesn't know anything about "graphics."
@RATFather That exactly was my initial thought as well, but I believe the point Judge Judy is trying to make is that there's an exception if the image itself contains a photographic depiction of a person because what's being used then is not just the image itself but the person's likeness, and thus the person's identity in a way, since what's being sold is not just the person's IP (the photo) but the person's likeness. That's how I took her argument, anyway.
@RATFather The law is not different for vector graphic websites. They still must have her permission or a waiver from her to sell her image. There was nothing to indicate that the site was a legitimate source that had obtained the girl's permission to sell her image.
@wobeck That's right. It's not different - nor can you "ignore" certain parts of it to fit a catch all.
IF the picture was illegaly obtained, then the WEBSITE that sold the image is to be held accountable. The worst that could happen to the nightclub owner or the Graphic Artist is a cease and desist order.
However, if the website purchased the rights to the image for resale purposes, she has no case whatsoever. A royalty free image means exactly that: do with it as you will.
@RATFather The girl's sworn testimony is that she did not give any such permission. The defendants who lost this case can now sue the website, and unless the website can prove that the girl is lying and that they have proof of her permission, then the website will lose that case. If the website really has her permission, then they can sue her for any damages. It is a simple matter of law and JJ knows the law and made the right decision. There is so far no evidence that the girl lied.
@wobeck Your forgetting the part where it was her "photographer" that put the images on the website who claimed he had her permission. Although he couldn't provide "proof", she was standing right there and would not have appeared in court on his side if that was not the case.
It *is* a simple matter of law, as you said - and as JJ herself has said, she is not net savy (obviously). My classmates and Professor at the Art Institute of Atlanta are just as entertained by this as I am. lol
@wobeck Additionally, the whole point is that if the website legaly obtained her image for resale pureposes, than the Defendants do not need her permission for anything. Nada. Zip. You sold it as Royalty free. You have *no say.*
Right back to square one... if the website obtained the picture illegaly, they can be sued, if the photographer gave it to them without her permission, he can be sued. The defendants simply get a cease and desist.
That dude isn't even concerned, "...that flyer brought us a lot more thatn 5K, so I don't even care." Pathetic! His mama should've spanked him when he was young and taught him right from wrong...and to respect women!
Those pics do NOT make her a slut, she is a woman, that is her body, those are her pictures of her body, no one has the right to use them in any circumstance, no matter if the website says its ok or not, those are her pictures of herself and they cannot for any reason use them without her permission.
@Yohtarama As the great 21st century philosopher Dave Chappelle said it " Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't ever forget it. But ladies, you must understand that is fucking confusing... You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform."
@Yohtarama so paparazzi takes pictures of celebrities and sell them, people buy them, tag them and post them on their websites, would you not laugh if the celebrity actually reports or sues the photographer and the website owner? how ridiculous
these club guys has nothing to do with this, they bought the pictures they payed for them, if the photographer didnt ask for the girl's permission only that should be sued for otherwise she can go fuck herself
Not sure what the guy was thinking. If he owned a dog grooming and boarding business, I bet he woulda used Michael Vick's pic. Perhaps a daycare flyer with a cabbage patch kid in a microwave??
Can't be too luxurious a strip club if the owner is having to pull images (gross, lame, ghetto images...really?? A giant lollipop?! Gaddamn.) from online rather than photographing his own entertainers...
@DisappointingPorn I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't understand why he wouldn't just take pictures of the dancers that work for him. Most places like that do.
@ 07:57 same issue happened in Australia where 15yo girl fake her id, sleep with AFL coach. Then sue the coach for sleeping with her while she's underage. She admited that she faked her id and lied to the coach, but no charge was laid even she changed her story few times and lied in the court. The coach? He was brutally toasted alive. Welcome to Australia where sexism is common, especially in court. The coach was lucky the girl is not Aboriginal. Otherwise he will be skinned before toasted.
Actually judge, you are wrong ... it depends on how the pictures are released (i.e. what domain and license they are released under). It's the responsibility of the releaser to secure the relevant waivers etc. The person that the lady can sue is the photographer (if he didn't get the proper permission).
Judy is right about the conspiracy thing. This bitch actually brought the guy who put her picture up on the site with her to court? I'm surprised she won. She's ugly anyways lol.
gotta love how the photographer stepped in for more money.. little cunt, he's the one who posted the shit on the internet and wants to sue people loool.
But it's like taking a picture of a celebrity posing in a bikini (which they do often - and this is not seen as slutty, just provocative pictures to sell a product), this is then put on the internet (as they often are) and putting it in a strip club flyer. What's the difference? (I assure you; in that case, those guys would be paying a lot more than 5,000 dollars.)
@mommakat71 - Gentlemen's club is the more appropriate term.
In any case, I didn't know that about the law. I'm 29, and if i meet some 17-year old who looks, acts, and tells me she is 29, and I have sex with her, I can go to prison? That's pure nonsense right there. Cause I am the victim.
@mommakat71 - It's a free country, and if woman desires to make money by showing off their body, that is her right. And if I desire to pay her to show her body to me, and dance on me, that is my right.
I've gone to plenty of gentlemen clubs, and we're expected to behave like gentlemen, and if we don't, we're shown the door. Some gentlemen clubs are also more classy then others, and plenty of the men behave with more manners and class then what you may see from guys at nightclubs.
@Zeeboe in that case, i pray my sons will have better taste in women when they become men because at this rate, this beautiful "free country" is a little bit too free.
@mommakat71 - I agree to a certain extent. For example, if I ran this country, the first thing I'd do is eliminate the primitive practice of religion and make this country an Atheist country. There'd be so much less violence and bigotry, and millions of dollars would be saved as a result, and the human race would become so much smarter with a better understanding of life and human nature.
@mommakat71 - I agree to a certain extent. For example, if I ran this country, the first thing I'd do is eliminate the primitive practice of religion and make this country an Atheist country. There'd be so much less violence and bigotry, and millions of dollars would be saved as a result, and the human race would become so much smarter with a better understanding of life and human nature.
The level of shade being thrown here is crazy. Just because she's having sexy pictures being taken of her, doesn't make her any less than a human being. She deserves to get paid if someone is using her image. Point blank period. Anyone who's hating on her hustle is just mad she's not the typical female to take shit lying down.
I AGREE she shouldnt put herself out there and then cry your posing nude for a internet site then when it gets used around your area you go sue she is stupid go get a real job!! and you wont run into this damn problem stop seeling yourself short!! be a woman FFS!"FOR f**k sakes!!
@666starz666 You obviously didn't watch the case. She didn't sue for people distributing her image online. For example you probably won't get squat in a case where Reddit took your facebook picture and made it into a meme. But she is suing because a private business took her pictures (her intellectual property) and benefited commercially from it without her consent/compensation. Modeling is a real job and FYI she was not nude, douche. She is free to choose her line of work.
a slut is a slut, whether you're selling sex, pole dancing or taking provocative photos. So for her to say she doesn't want to be associated with such a raunchy club is retarded. Only sluts believe in degrees of whoring.
It does seem like there is missing information with this story but as we saw the photographer didn't bring the consent form he said he had, if he did have it with him the outcome of this case may have been different. The fact remains though that he neglected to bring that with him and you can't exactly just tell a court and judge "let me run home and get it". Without that sheet saying she gave permission to repost her pictures for all we know she had them taken for a gift for her boyfriend.
The defendants are stupid ! They seriously think they can just use anyone's photo off of the internet? Gees. JJ had to explain so many times using numerous examples! Maybe their club is small and nobody bother to look at their flyers so they got away with it many times before using ppl's photos, but ahem not so lucky this time! They should use their own dancers' photo! That's what clubs do, and that's what clubs are supposed to do!
Um, the photographer took the pictures. He has the right to sue those people for using HIS photos. And if she wanted to sue, she should have sued HIM (the photographer) & those defendants altogether. But I guess it makes sense, because JJ was probably aiming at either of one them (plaintiff and photographer) to sue the defendant.
There are cases where the photographer sued the model for using the photos. Obviously some contract is made otherwise any photos are the rights of the photographer.
She should be suing the photographer for selling the images to the website. If I use a picture from iStock or any other kind of stock photography, I don't have to get consent from the model, I have the consent to use it under the contract from iStock. Most stock photography sites operate in a similar fashion where the uploader, usually the photographer,is the one that signs a waiver from the model.The graphic designer is innocent.
The fact the Photographer was there as a plantiff was a joke.
I would think she has the right to sue both the website and the club (independently) for using it commercially without her consent. Just because she didn't go after the website doesn't make her case against the club any less legitimate, because both of them benefited commercially from her image without her consent (and/or compensation).
@ffles I went to the website the defendant graphic designer obtained the photo from and checked it out. This website isn't a commercial stock photography market, it's just a community-based image sharing website. There doesn't appear to be any way to include model release information or any rights releases for the photos, except for Creative Commons licensing (which doesn't affect publicity/model release rights.)
@ffles Why would she sue the photographer? It's entirely possible that she DID agree to have her photos up there. That would help her if she were trying to get a career in modeling started. But regardless of whether she agreed to that or not, the club still used HER photo to imply that she was a dancer there. They can't do that under any circumstances. An open and shut case. I just can't believe how stupid the defendants are to even go on TV thinking they had a case!
Oh ok , so I have to ask a girl's ID before sleeping with her to have no fear of being sued and going to federal prison ??? Even when she says she's 18 ( or whatever age you need to be in the US) and/or looks that age ? That make's sense...
@rounds28 I dunno. Media bombards us with this image of club owners as smooth dudes who wear suits and earrings (and are often black), and people who work with computers as fat (and usually white). The black dude was dressed in more classy clothing, and the white dude looked like he'd been on the computer too long and also needed a shower. I've never been to a gentleman's club, though, so it shows you how much I know about the issue.
They made more than $5000 using her image, and yet the owner still doesn't get that using someones likeness without their consent or permission is wrong.
I'd be pissed off if someone used a picture of myself and it generated income. That's income I should be owed, or at least a fair percentage.
where is Nimbibia ?
mad444maddy 18 hours ago in playlist Judge Judy Episodes
"That's kitty porn!" I've seen kitty porn, it was funny when the English bulldog came in the cammera view an- oh wait she said kiddy. . .
ShadowoOfBlood 1 day ago
lol @ bird and how he turns his head away after glancing over them. I love bird.
H0tkebab 2 days ago
This time Judge Judy is not right.
dimitar27 2 days ago
Here in Brazil there was a famous similar case. A Clinic's outdoor showed an image of one of their dentists, saying something like: "Our professionals are the best in the market" followed by some of this guy's titles.
The dentist sued the clinic for using his image without consent.
Even though the clinic was showing a good image of him (differently from the "pole-dancer"), he unwillingly became famous, and that annoyed him.
People should learn to ask for permission first.
sucrilhus 3 days ago
compensated didily
Jesse1Zionist 3 days ago in playlist Other Trash TV II
Comment removed
Jesse1Zionist 3 days ago in playlist Other Trash TV II
This has been flagged as spam show
THE JUDGE IS THE CHUCK NORRIS OF THE LAW
dilwich123 4 days ago
Comment removed
dilwich123 4 days ago
Shit, she looks fine. Make her into a pole dancer lol
georgepwner1 4 days ago
Joe is like a 3 year old he will blame anyone he can just to get away from trouble.
sladunkaAa 4 days ago
funny how she pass the fact her photografer put that on the internet.. because prolly he said, if i win this, i give u 50%
rockisbetter 5 days ago
This is one of the cases i neither watch nor comment at...it is like watching a demon suing the devil..
trappedinamadworld 1 week ago
@trappedinamadworld
how is she a demon?
MaMastoast 2 days ago
"I'd like to take a look at them." Suuuure you do, Judy.
Str3ssed 1 week ago 2
this is retarded.
takeaction183 1 week ago
What a despicable man.
Nizingur 1 week ago 10
Three stooges
joydubyadee 1 week ago
Copyright is a bitch...
Outsider245 1 week ago
Well, those websites could easily be sued since they have no rights over the pictures, and so can the paparazzi. If these guys payed for the pictures, they should sue the photographer or whoever sold them to them and get their 5000$ back. She has nothing to do with that.
Halliar 1 week ago
the armenian fat tub of shit really needs to get himself a lawyer if he is running a club. the guy seems too dense to get it.
playadominical 1 week ago
poor girl =/
hentaimaid 1 week ago
these guys probably should make a suit against the site, although the site wasnt disclosed and no details of any sort of authorization or anything came up so who knows. either way theres probably a trail of bread crumbs leading to somebody that these guys could probably find. theyre only half at fault i think
arrowmanmike 1 week ago
sue their ass and get that money
ggundam99 1 week ago
6:26 I know why he was making those faces. He was imagining JJ with one of those pictures. Dude jizzed in his pants.
Kindredtownthe1st 1 week ago
I think I saw that flyer before.
Kindredtownthe1st 1 week ago
"Her on that flyer made us a lot more than 5000 dollars so if that's what it costs then so be it" lol $WAG! bet he wouldn't have said that before she made her decision lol
LegendaryTerro 1 week ago
for some weird reason the plantif's face is kind of attractive.
rootiest 1 week ago
did he just admit that he used the fliers at the end
GYABON22 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrJakomull 1 week ago
IMO, If you put a picture on the internet, you're opening it up to everyone, and they're allowed to use it. Putting it up on the internet is basically opening the gates for people to use it. IF SHE DOESN'T LIKE IT DON'T PUT THEM UP! Sure if she individually did not put them up, and the photographer put them up without her consent, then that is another story.
1ambience1 1 week ago
@1ambience1 Try copying Mickey Mouse's image copying and pasting it on flyers and posting it all over the word...you'll be sued in a heartbeat. It is not their image they don't "own" her body.
nanichick5 1 week ago 20
@nanichick5 I never said that it was legal.. read the first three words ( IN MY OPINION ). And that's a companies image not a person.
1ambience1 1 week ago
@nanichick5 You're mostly right.
If you get photos like those taken of you, and you specifically sign a waver saying that the photographer owns the photos, and then the photographer puts the photos in public domain, then somebody can use that photo of you for whatever they want.
guitarrhythymfool 1 week ago in playlist Judge Judy Episodes
@1ambience1 Like anyone who would be kicked out of university for taking someone else's work and calling it your own, you will be sued for taking someone else's body and making profit off of it. You don't take someone's identity and make it your own period. She has the freedom to do what she pleases and still own it.
okokwegetit22 1 week ago
@1ambience1 This is why models exist because they sign agreements and are okay with their identity being used for advertising. They also get paid for that. This woman did not give any permission.
okokwegetit22 1 week ago
Regardless of who is legally wrong or right, the plaintiff says she didn't like how she was portrayed in the flyer, but the picture the guys used was the exact same one that she posed for originally. They didn't change anything about how tasteful or tasteless the picture was. So why should she be embarrassed. The pictures were already public on the internet, and they were the same pictures.
Autry8987 2 weeks ago
also, that "she turns out to be 14" thing is completely irrelevant...judy reeeeeally dropped the ball on this one...it's surprising, honestly. usually she's right on or at least pretty close....this one was waaaaaay off though.
JSullivanMusic19 2 weeks ago
@JSullivanMusic19 Jude Judy is right in terms of the law here although she didn't articulate the reasons well.
Kasparovwannabe 2 weeks ago
@Kasparovwannabe actually, she wasn't. not just with her examples...but i mean, as the law states, if a picture is made public with no copyright or legal rights of any kind attached to it or the person/set in it, you can use it for any purpose, personal or commercial, unless stated otherwise. it was on a picture sharing site in the public domain section of the site, the photographer had permission, according to their own statements, to put them online...so how was judy right?
JSullivanMusic19 2 weeks ago
and it's not "exactly the same" like judy says...she has a signed contract with the network and her agent...i know that in that contract, it mentions using her likeness, image or voice...now, that makes it a completely different situation than the lady's considering she had no contract, nor any way to prove what her intentions for taking the pics were in the first place. and legally, you can use any pic or video you take or record in public of anyone...so that example was faulty too.
JSullivanMusic19 2 weeks ago
eh....i love judy...but she was off on this one. unless the lady had legal rights (copyrights) to her images, anybody can use them for any reason...especially if they're on a public domain site...but, like most tv judges, they don't always go by the law, i mean, it's civil court..."law" clearly doesn't play much part in these courts. it's more just what the judge feels or thinks...which hardly makes it "court" at that point, but whatever.
JSullivanMusic19 2 weeks ago
@JSullivanMusic19 Well I know what you're saying, but you can't divorce your likeness from a picture of yourself, copyright protected or not. It wasn't the legal image file that got them in trouble, it was her likeness, which you need contractual, definitive rights to use someone's likeness... even (and especially) in cases involving super model celebs. The reason some magazines get away with it is by playing the reporter loophole. This was a case of retail advertising. Judge is right.
aarossell 2 weeks ago
@aarossell but my point is, in giving her photographer the right to use her likeness and image publicly, she divorced her likeness in itself...so, judge is wrong. if she were going to sue anyone, it shouldn't have been those 2...it should have been the photographer or even the site they got it from...
JSullivanMusic19 2 weeks ago
Did anyone see Byrd's face when he took a look at the pictures? He was like "not bad!" haha
BlimeyGames 2 weeks ago
Then the jackass says "she exploited herself" but he's not using the word at that point the way JJ is using it. You don't get to use someone else's image for commercial purposes without their permission, THAT is the exploitation. So these morons that say "she was on the internet" so what? Now suddenly none of us are supposed to have images around anywhere, or someone might misuse them and it's our fault? Fact is, they are blinded by the sex aspect of this. It's the same as a school photo.
IndifferentSky 2 weeks ago
Why didn't you get the photos from your DANCERS asshole? Because you're in the business of deception.
IndifferentSky 2 weeks ago 2
anyone else notice byrd look at the pics haha
MissPrincessAQR 2 weeks ago
so not true i don't think judge judy keeps up with internet law, one of the few cases i disagree with judge judy
Bluegomu 2 weeks ago in playlist Judge Judy Episodes
she's embarrassed to show her pics on the internet... but she's not afraid to be exploited on judge judy infront of 10million viewers? ok.
pooper6661 2 weeks ago
She does not have the right to sue them, She allowed her picture half naked to be on the internet. HER FAULT!
Degenerate999 2 weeks ago
@Degenerate999 Actually she does, The two guys didn't have permission.
IanHasLargeLobes 2 weeks ago
@IanHasLargeLobes Does not matter. She put them on the internet, so it is HER FAULT.
Degenerate999 2 weeks ago
@Degenerate999 so you're not even listening to what she's saying. I was going to say the same thing, do you think that I could use Judge Judy's image to promote my business because her image was on the internet? You're a moron.
IndifferentSky 2 weeks ago
@IndifferentSky Your just fucking stupid im gonna bother wasting my time on idiots like you. She put them on the internet. Therefore it was STUPID of her to not think that something like this could happen. Then she cries about it like a baby when it happens, because of her own stupid mistake. When she put them on the internet, she no longer has control of what happens with the photos. Don't even respond i will not read it. I feel i will lose braincells reading your stupidity.....
Degenerate999 2 weeks ago
@Degenerate999 No the photographer put them online, Did you even watch the video? Watch it then try to tell me different, Some people are so stupid lol
IanHasLargeLobes 2 weeks ago
@IanHasLargeLobes Yea but i does not matter, she gave the photographer permission to put them online. What are you not understanding?
Degenerate999 2 weeks ago
@Degenerate999 I'm done talking to you she actually didn't
IanHasLargeLobes 1 week ago
@IanHasLargeLobes Then she should be suing him. And i was already done talking to you..
Degenerate999 1 week ago
@Degenerate999 you jst tlaked
IanHasLargeLobes 1 week ago
@IanHasLargeLobes Can you get anymore stupid? Stop replying you are makin yourself look like a fool.
Degenerate999 1 week ago
That's what I said. If the website legally obtained her image, it means she gave permission for it to be sold and she perjured herself under oath. In this case, the defendants can either sue the site, who will sue the girl, or subpoena the needed evidence from the site and sue the girl. As of this time, there is no evidence that the girl is lying, and no evidence that the site has the right to sell her image under that particular copyright law, and the defendants had no right to use her image.
wobeck 2 weeks ago
I wonder how Judge Judy would feel about everyone using her voice and photo for soundboard prank calls. lol
ThemedPrankCalls 2 weeks ago
Judge Judy had already stated several times that she is not "net savy," and this case proves her lack of knowledge relating to "IP" laws.
The fact is, when you visit an authentic vector graphics website, the images are specifically sold "royalty free" for personal or commercial purposes. This is very clear on the websites. JJ is right if they just "stole" the image, but the image came from a legitimate source.
But unfortunately for the Defendant, the judge doesn't know anything about "graphics."
RATFather 2 weeks ago
@RATFather That exactly was my initial thought as well, but I believe the point Judge Judy is trying to make is that there's an exception if the image itself contains a photographic depiction of a person because what's being used then is not just the image itself but the person's likeness, and thus the person's identity in a way, since what's being sold is not just the person's IP (the photo) but the person's likeness. That's how I took her argument, anyway.
ThemedPrankCalls 2 weeks ago
@RATFather The law is not different for vector graphic websites. They still must have her permission or a waiver from her to sell her image. There was nothing to indicate that the site was a legitimate source that had obtained the girl's permission to sell her image.
wobeck 2 weeks ago
@wobeck That's right. It's not different - nor can you "ignore" certain parts of it to fit a catch all.
IF the picture was illegaly obtained, then the WEBSITE that sold the image is to be held accountable. The worst that could happen to the nightclub owner or the Graphic Artist is a cease and desist order.
However, if the website purchased the rights to the image for resale purposes, she has no case whatsoever. A royalty free image means exactly that: do with it as you will.
RATFather 2 weeks ago
@RATFather The girl's sworn testimony is that she did not give any such permission. The defendants who lost this case can now sue the website, and unless the website can prove that the girl is lying and that they have proof of her permission, then the website will lose that case. If the website really has her permission, then they can sue her for any damages. It is a simple matter of law and JJ knows the law and made the right decision. There is so far no evidence that the girl lied.
wobeck 2 weeks ago
@wobeck Your forgetting the part where it was her "photographer" that put the images on the website who claimed he had her permission. Although he couldn't provide "proof", she was standing right there and would not have appeared in court on his side if that was not the case.
It *is* a simple matter of law, as you said - and as JJ herself has said, she is not net savy (obviously). My classmates and Professor at the Art Institute of Atlanta are just as entertained by this as I am. lol
RATFather 2 weeks ago
@wobeck Additionally, the whole point is that if the website legaly obtained her image for resale pureposes, than the Defendants do not need her permission for anything. Nada. Zip. You sold it as Royalty free. You have *no say.*
Right back to square one... if the website obtained the picture illegaly, they can be sued, if the photographer gave it to them without her permission, he can be sued. The defendants simply get a cease and desist.
It's pretty basic.
RATFather 2 weeks ago
she doesn't want to be associated with being a stripper but is taking raunchy pics and getting them posted on the internet
mjd35805 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tt247jer 2 weeks ago
That dude isn't even concerned, "...that flyer brought us a lot more thatn 5K, so I don't even care." Pathetic! His mama should've spanked him when he was young and taught him right from wrong...and to respect women!
terrex28 2 weeks ago 2
Bahaha 5:28... "FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKKK!!!"
pocaigue2289 2 weeks ago
jugde Judy is so hilarious! lolllllll
AndyinMTL 2 weeks ago
"whaounchy club?"
s4il 2 weeks ago
Just look at the plaintiff. Soulless
TheSyntaxOverride 2 weeks ago
Those pics do NOT make her a slut, she is a woman, that is her body, those are her pictures of her body, no one has the right to use them in any circumstance, no matter if the website says its ok or not, those are her pictures of herself and they cannot for any reason use them without her permission.
Yohtarama 2 weeks ago 35
@Yohtarama It does make her a skank. She's ok with having alot of guys oggle half naked pics of her for money.
Decimate92 2 weeks ago
@Yohtarama She fucked up by putting them on the internet PERIOD
Degenerate999 2 weeks ago
@Yohtarama says who?
adrianhmartinez 2 weeks ago
@adrianhmartinez It's the law.
cometrally 1 week ago
@Yohtarama the photographer even needs permission ...
hentaimaid 1 week ago
@Yohtarama As the great 21st century philosopher Dave Chappelle said it " Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't ever forget it. But ladies, you must understand that is fucking confusing... You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform."
watch?v=_uscmRI9ZrE
saucy05 1 week ago
@Yohtarama so paparazzi takes pictures of celebrities and sell them, people buy them, tag them and post them on their websites, would you not laugh if the celebrity actually reports or sues the photographer and the website owner? how ridiculous
these club guys has nothing to do with this, they bought the pictures they payed for them, if the photographer didnt ask for the girl's permission only that should be sued for otherwise she can go fuck herself
McLover20121221 1 week ago
@Yohtarama her fault for even letting them take it in the first place or even becoming a stripper.
3litepker 1 week ago
I love you judge Judy!!
Yohtarama 2 weeks ago
Not sure what the guy was thinking. If he owned a dog grooming and boarding business, I bet he woulda used Michael Vick's pic. Perhaps a daycare flyer with a cabbage patch kid in a microwave??
tconst17 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:03 Bailiff looks lol 3:21 Bailiff doesn't care xD Win!
americanpsycho93 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
americanpsycho93 2 weeks ago
Any woman who's willing to take pics like that for money's a slut.
Decimate92 2 weeks ago
@Decimate92
Really? If I were a hot female and I could easily make money by merely posing for a stupid picture, I'd consider it too.
xxESPx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Decimate92 2 weeks ago
She could buy allot of watermellons with that $5000
REPOMAN24722 3 weeks ago
Awesome episode is awesome.
ZsenzoGazda 3 weeks ago
Can't be too luxurious a strip club if the owner is having to pull images (gross, lame, ghetto images...really?? A giant lollipop?! Gaddamn.) from online rather than photographing his own entertainers...
DisappointingPorn 3 weeks ago
@DisappointingPorn I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't understand why he wouldn't just take pictures of the dancers that work for him. Most places like that do.
FireyBlaze101 2 weeks ago
@ 07:57 same issue happened in Australia where 15yo girl fake her id, sleep with AFL coach. Then sue the coach for sleeping with her while she's underage. She admited that she faked her id and lied to the coach, but no charge was laid even she changed her story few times and lied in the court. The coach? He was brutally toasted alive. Welcome to Australia where sexism is common, especially in court. The coach was lucky the girl is not Aboriginal. Otherwise he will be skinned before toasted.
briansuck 3 weeks ago
ah crap, now I have to remove all 68 pictures of edited Judge Judy pictures I posted from my dating website. lol (joking)
briansuck 3 weeks ago
tons of online dating website and porn website using photos they can get from facebook, friendster, or tweeter, no charge taken for them.
briansuck 3 weeks ago
Actually judge, you are wrong ... it depends on how the pictures are released (i.e. what domain and license they are released under). It's the responsibility of the releaser to secure the relevant waivers etc. The person that the lady can sue is the photographer (if he didn't get the proper permission).
pubuman 3 weeks ago
Why am I only interested in watching Judge Judy when I have homework?... Ugh..
WIldFire979 3 weeks ago 77
@WIldFire979 dude me to i have nine pieces of paper that are do tomorrow
21MrMOM 2 weeks ago
@21MrMOM Yeah, but that's just 4 tears away with proper planning!
gluechucker 2 weeks ago
@WIldFire979 Haha, I know the feeling! :D
GINNERMAN123 2 weeks ago
Judy is right about the conspiracy thing. This bitch actually brought the guy who put her picture up on the site with her to court? I'm surprised she won. She's ugly anyways lol.
naturalhairedhoney 3 weeks ago
this is not fair, if the website says all models are 18+ and turns out to be a 14 yo the website should be responsible not the people using the image
Testiculatorz 3 weeks ago
I loved her in Avatar
ivanjacobs100 3 weeks ago
gotta love how the photographer stepped in for more money.. little cunt, he's the one who posted the shit on the internet and wants to sue people loool.
gearsofhalotheftauto 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MVPgoalie 3 weeks ago
But it's like taking a picture of a celebrity posing in a bikini (which they do often - and this is not seen as slutty, just provocative pictures to sell a product), this is then put on the internet (as they often are) and putting it in a strip club flyer. What's the difference? (I assure you; in that case, those guys would be paying a lot more than 5,000 dollars.)
imyumi 3 weeks ago
She is hot. :) I wish I could some see her on a Thursday night.
Zeeboe 3 weeks ago
funny how they say "gentlemans club" instead of titty bar
mommakat71 3 weeks ago
@mommakat71 - Gentlemen's club is the more appropriate term.
In any case, I didn't know that about the law. I'm 29, and if i meet some 17-year old who looks, acts, and tells me she is 29, and I have sex with her, I can go to prison? That's pure nonsense right there. Cause I am the victim.
Zeeboe 3 weeks ago
@Zeeboe there isn't any appropriate term for letting strangers see your body.
knowing how old a person is before getting intimate with them comes with maturity, meaning the ability to know when someone is not honest.
mommakat71 3 weeks ago
@mommakat71 - It's a free country, and if woman desires to make money by showing off their body, that is her right. And if I desire to pay her to show her body to me, and dance on me, that is my right.
I've gone to plenty of gentlemen clubs, and we're expected to behave like gentlemen, and if we don't, we're shown the door. Some gentlemen clubs are also more classy then others, and plenty of the men behave with more manners and class then what you may see from guys at nightclubs.
Zeeboe 3 weeks ago
@Zeeboe in that case, i pray my sons will have better taste in women when they become men because at this rate, this beautiful "free country" is a little bit too free.
mommakat71 3 weeks ago
@mommakat71 - I agree to a certain extent. For example, if I ran this country, the first thing I'd do is eliminate the primitive practice of religion and make this country an Atheist country. There'd be so much less violence and bigotry, and millions of dollars would be saved as a result, and the human race would become so much smarter with a better understanding of life and human nature.
Zeeboe 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mommakat71 - I agree to a certain extent. For example, if I ran this country, the first thing I'd do is eliminate the primitive practice of religion and make this country an Atheist country. There'd be so much less violence and bigotry, and millions of dollars would be saved as a result, and the human race would become so much smarter with a better understanding of life and human nature.
Zeeboe 3 weeks ago
LoL spawn from CS
ForeverHardstyle 3 weeks ago
The level of shade being thrown here is crazy. Just because she's having sexy pictures being taken of her, doesn't make her any less than a human being. She deserves to get paid if someone is using her image. Point blank period. Anyone who's hating on her hustle is just mad she's not the typical female to take shit lying down.
dadevi 3 weeks ago 2
@dadevi AMEN
TuTu99o 3 weeks ago
I AGREE she shouldnt put herself out there and then cry your posing nude for a internet site then when it gets used around your area you go sue she is stupid go get a real job!! and you wont run into this damn problem stop seeling yourself short!! be a woman FFS!"FOR f**k sakes!!
666starz666 3 weeks ago 2
@666starz666 You obviously didn't watch the case. She didn't sue for people distributing her image online. For example you probably won't get squat in a case where Reddit took your facebook picture and made it into a meme. But she is suing because a private business took her pictures (her intellectual property) and benefited commercially from it without her consent/compensation. Modeling is a real job and FYI she was not nude, douche. She is free to choose her line of work.
Lido209vaj 3 weeks ago
Judge Judy should have told this dumb slut that she wouldn't have had this issue if she never took the pictures.
BlackCottonBella 3 weeks ago
a slut is a slut, whether you're selling sex, pole dancing or taking provocative photos. So for her to say she doesn't want to be associated with such a raunchy club is retarded. Only sluts believe in degrees of whoring.
BlackCottonBella 3 weeks ago
that bitch deserved it. stupid slut.
MaroonStorm 4 weeks ago
He looks like Iceman off the incredibles.
MrDasaint08 4 weeks ago
@SK39618 I think you need to shut up, 'cause you sound ignorant!
813flawdaboy 4 weeks ago 9
@813flawdaboy bahah burn!
tylernicholas 4 weeks ago
@tylernicholas lol racist people are funny!
813flawdaboy 3 weeks ago
@813flawdaboy racism aint funny! I love all colours, types and creeds :D
tylernicholas 3 weeks ago
Why is this illegal if people have mugshot websites and post peoples mugshots online - charging them money to be removed...??
jNofdog 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
8:17 girl shocked that Judge Judy just said that.
Bakonsmith 4 weeks ago
3:17 girl shocked that judge judy just said that
Bakonsmith 4 weeks ago
I'd pay to see jj on a pole ;)
xvert1967 4 weeks ago 3
After Byrd gave the photos back to the kid on the left, he started staring at them. LOL!
blackasnight333 4 weeks ago
It does seem like there is missing information with this story but as we saw the photographer didn't bring the consent form he said he had, if he did have it with him the outcome of this case may have been different. The fact remains though that he neglected to bring that with him and you can't exactly just tell a court and judge "let me run home and get it". Without that sheet saying she gave permission to repost her pictures for all we know she had them taken for a gift for her boyfriend.
gexxy 1 month ago
The defendants are stupid ! They seriously think they can just use anyone's photo off of the internet? Gees. JJ had to explain so many times using numerous examples! Maybe their club is small and nobody bother to look at their flyers so they got away with it many times before using ppl's photos, but ahem not so lucky this time! They should use their own dancers' photo! That's what clubs do, and that's what clubs are supposed to do!
onlineversion 1 month ago
Um, the photographer took the pictures. He has the right to sue those people for using HIS photos. And if she wanted to sue, she should have sued HIM (the photographer) & those defendants altogether. But I guess it makes sense, because JJ was probably aiming at either of one them (plaintiff and photographer) to sue the defendant.
There are cases where the photographer sued the model for using the photos. Obviously some contract is made otherwise any photos are the rights of the photographer.
onlineversion 1 month ago
*Namibia is a country in Southern AFrica
319am1 1 month ago
Too bad
nellie2581 1 month ago
Comment removed
nellie2581 1 month ago
i would demolish that black gurl
tylerd324 1 month ago
@tylerd324 Why? She seems nice. The Defendant's are arrogant and unrepentant.
TheTubePortal 1 month ago 2
@TheTubePortal
yeh i totally agree, but i think you misinterpreted what i meant by the word 'demolish'
tylerd324 1 month ago
Was the plaintiff in Avatar?
Imogen1885 1 month ago
@Imogen1885 lol was thinking of that too, she's pretty though
mwinahaha 1 month ago
So what if i got a picture of Jennifer Lopez and put it on a flyer for my website saying "Hot Latinas" would i get in trouble?
MaynardJamesKeenanJr 1 month ago
@MaynardJamesKeenanJr Because you did ask for permission, it's illegal, it's copyright infringement
nellie2581 1 month ago
@MaynardJamesKeenanJr not unless someone was paying to see yourwebsite
MChell87 1 month ago
I would hate it if I every dated Judge judy's daughter!
DevilDogMuNky 1 month ago
lol that bitch dont care if they use her face/body because she cares for it. she want a fucking dollar dollar fucking dollar fucking dirty bitch.
JuanTamad2011 1 month ago
@JuanTamad2011 Oh, so you know her then? Or are you just another retard on YouTube?
mymarkis666 1 month ago
@mymarkis666 i know her, and i know your mom too
JuanTamad2011 1 month ago
stupid bi*ch
MagicSoulMaster 1 month ago
@MagicSoulMaster Yes, it's probably her fault
nellie2581 1 month ago
She should be suing the photographer for selling the images to the website. If I use a picture from iStock or any other kind of stock photography, I don't have to get consent from the model, I have the consent to use it under the contract from iStock. Most stock photography sites operate in a similar fashion where the uploader, usually the photographer,is the one that signs a waiver from the model.The graphic designer is innocent.
The fact the Photographer was there as a plantiff was a joke.
ffles 1 month ago 33
@ffles The strip club owners copy those image and use it for their flyers. They look at her as a stripper.
PaperLove25 4 weeks ago
I would think she has the right to sue both the website and the club (independently) for using it commercially without her consent. Just because she didn't go after the website doesn't make her case against the club any less legitimate, because both of them benefited commercially from her image without her consent (and/or compensation).
Lido209vaj 3 weeks ago
@ffles I went to the website the defendant graphic designer obtained the photo from and checked it out. This website isn't a commercial stock photography market, it's just a community-based image sharing website. There doesn't appear to be any way to include model release information or any rights releases for the photos, except for Creative Commons licensing (which doesn't affect publicity/model release rights.)
ksd5 3 weeks ago
@ffles Why would she sue the photographer? It's entirely possible that she DID agree to have her photos up there. That would help her if she were trying to get a career in modeling started. But regardless of whether she agreed to that or not, the club still used HER photo to imply that she was a dancer there. They can't do that under any circumstances. An open and shut case. I just can't believe how stupid the defendants are to even go on TV thinking they had a case!
jimmyk5769 3 weeks ago
YEAH!
BenIsAMofosexual 1 month ago
women these days are so trashy i swear. it's disgusting
VixxenEyez 1 month ago 2
@VixxenEyez I agree
nellie2581 1 month ago
Oh ok , so I have to ask a girl's ID before sleeping with her to have no fear of being sued and going to federal prison ??? Even when she says she's 18 ( or whatever age you need to be in the US) and/or looks that age ? That make's sense...
sportingfan1 1 month ago
@rounds28 I dunno. Media bombards us with this image of club owners as smooth dudes who wear suits and earrings (and are often black), and people who work with computers as fat (and usually white). The black dude was dressed in more classy clothing, and the white dude looked like he'd been on the computer too long and also needed a shower. I've never been to a gentleman's club, though, so it shows you how much I know about the issue.
tpauluchs 1 month ago
I hate the bit before the actual court when the narrator tells you stuff you don't wanna hear yet =(
sportingfan1 1 month ago
They made more than $5000 using her image, and yet the owner still doesn't get that using someones likeness without their consent or permission is wrong.
I'd be pissed off if someone used a picture of myself and it generated income. That's income I should be owed, or at least a fair percentage.
onlyrealnumber 1 month ago