Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton Nude Photos To Be Shown In Florida Art Exhibit (lifesized--on canvas)

[big_dog]

In a shocking turn of events, hacked nude photos that are causing such a legal frenzy in Hollywood, will now go ON DISPLAY at an art exhibit! The recently leaked private images of Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton will be featured at a St. Petersburg gallery as a part of Los Angeles artist XVALA's 'Fear Google' campaign Oct. 30 Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton's recent viral private photos are heading to an art exhibit.

St. Petersburg, Fla., gallery Cory Allen Contemporary Art announced that the leaked nude images of the Hollywood stars would "be the latest additions to (Los Angeles) artist XVALA's 'Fear Google' campaign and will be on display to the public," according to a press release. The pictures will be "printed on canvas, life-size and unaltered" in CACA's upcoming show, titled "No Delete." The artist has a seven-year collection of "images found on Google of celebrities in their most vulnerable and private moments, that were comprised by either hackers or the paparazzi," the release continued.


"XVALA appropriating celebrity compromised images and the overall 'Fear Google' campaign has helped strengthen the ongoing debate over privacy in the digital era," the gallery's Cory Allen said. Leaked images of Kate Upton and other celebs will be 'printed on canvas, life-size and unaltered' when displayed in the art exhibit.

"The commentary behind this show is a reflection of who we are today," Allen said. "We all become 'users' and in the end, we become 'used.'" "In today's culture, everybody wants to know everything about everybody. An individual's privacy has become everyone else's business," XVALA said. Leaked images of Kate Upton and other celebs will be 'printed on canvas, life-size and unaltered' when displayed in the art exhibit.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/jennifer-lawrence-kate-upton-leaked-photos-shown-exhibit-article-1.1927689

[lapfog_1]

1. As part of the "Fear Google"

exhibit, would the artist also post their credit card information, PIN codes, and other personal data?

[Hissyspit]

4. That stuff is not in the public domain.

The images now are.

[big_dog]

6. not if J-Law's ex boyfriend claims owernship of the pictures

because more than likely the pics were taken way before she was dating Chris Matin of Coldplay

[MohRokTah]

8. You don't understand IP law, do you? The photos were stolen.

The photographer retains copyright.

[Hissyspit]

11. Yes, I understand that.

The point is the poster's example was not equivalent.

[MohRokTah]

17. Yes, it was equivalent.

The photos were private.

[hifiguy]

31. Copyright issues and invasion of privacy issues

are two entirely different things that people are conflating in this discussion.

To prove damages in copyright you have to prove that the infringer cost you money by reason of its infringement - i.e., someone who sells bootleg DVDs who is damaging the copyright owner's work by selling bootlegs and depriving the holder of profits to which they are legally entitled. This does not necessarily involve copyright unless the photographer wants to pursue such a (dubious, on the face of it) claim. If the photographer had no intention of making money off the pictures, there are no damages, and where there are no damages, a case may be summarily dismissed under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its analogs which exist in every state in the union. At least that is what I was taught in law school.

An invasion of privacy claim - which is a purely civil tort action, not a criminal one - stands on different grounds entirely, but in all likelihood could only be brought against whoever hacked and uploaded the pix in the first place. And if it is a teenage hacker he is almost certainly judgment proof (a/k/a stone broke); the plaintiff in such cases is, to use a term i have heard a few judges and lawyers use, shit out of luck, damages-wise.

[lapfog_1]

12. no, they aren't.

Stolen information is not "public domain" even if it posted on public websites.

But why private images (unless some sort of shaming or titillation is involved)?

Why are images taken in private, stored with the expectation of privacy... any different than medical records or financial data.

[lapfog_1]

23. TMI

but the issue is that this private information, because it is nude photographs, is somehow different than credit card numbers or medical files. I don't think it is. People have a right to photograph or video themselves in private moments, nude or not, covered in DNA or not, whatever... and they have a right to expect that this information remains private, even when stored on public computer networks, if said storage and networks make a claim of privacy (and they ALL say "SECURE" someplace in the advertisement).

That someone stole them does not somehow make them public domain.

[big_dog]

26. the problem is that the context of the photos are totally missing in this story

Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 08:35 PM - Edit history (2)

i realized that cultural norms are changeable and hard to define, but an exhibit of hard porn should have certain limitations (like 1,000 feet from a school) and most likely is not covered under the first amendment

[NuclearDem]

48. What the fuck?

You can go ahead and self-delete that, too.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. Pretty sure the "facial" pics

were fakes. Everything I've read thus far declares them fake.

[pnwmom]

42. The stars still own the copyright to their own pictures -- so no, it is not public domain

just because some hacker stole the photos and put them on the internet.

[NuclearDem]

51. No. They're not. That's not how public domain works.

Works enter the public domain a certain period of time after the author's death.

That's why places like ISOHunt have been shut down.

[Hissyspit]

52. I shouldn't have used a legalistic term. I just meant they were out in the public.

As I pointed out in another post, the point is that their demand that the artist release personal financial information is not an effective accusation of hypocrisy, because those things are not in the public.

Whatever legal recourse the celebrities have against the use of the images in art or satire or news, it is not equivalent to the point that poster was making.

[Blue_Tires]

2. I think public pressure might get that exhibit shut down

it's pure publicity whoring at it's most shameless and cynical...

[big_dog]

3. one phone call from Detroit Tiger hurler Justin Verlander would shut down 1/2 the exhibit

via copyright laws used so far in this case

[Hissyspit]

5. No, it's not.

[MohRokTah]

7. Yeah, it is. eom

[NuclearDem]

49. Yes, it is.

[Blue_Tires]

55. We'll see

Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 09:43 PM - Edit history (1)

This whole "Come see celebrity nips! And while you're here, check out our other art!" campaign just to bump up attendance will leave a sour taste in some people's mouths...

Not to mention they might attract a totally different "art crowd" than the one they normally get...

[big_dog]

61. check your raincoat at the door policy

i hope its a clear night in florida

[underpants]

9. Oh so WE weren't supposed to see them

Got it

[Beaverhausen]

10. their Facebook page if you care to comment

https://www.facebook.com/coryallencontemporaryart

Looks like they are loving the publicity they are getting.

[big_dog]

14. this will be global world wide news by the weekend

because of the first amendment issues and privacy questions it raises

[Quantess]

13. Just to let everyone know, I don't care a flying fig

about boobs. If women were in charge of things, this would not be a big issue.

[big_dog]

21. i think J-Law wishes it was just about the boobies

this goes way past playful selfies with a college boyfriend

[Quantess]

32. Sigh... My fault for posting at all.

I really don't give a shit, at all. I don't give a flying fig.

[cwydro]

47. I know, right?

Men get their panties in a wad anytime the word is mentioned.

Hilarious.

[nomorenomore08]

56. ZOMG BOOBIES!

Y'know, I appreciate the female form as much as any heterosexual man, but the adolescent slobbering (and/or shock and horror) over certain body parts makes me think that we, as a culture, need to grow the fuck up.

(Note that my comment has nothing to do with invasion of anyone's privacy, which is wrong. Period.)

[hifiguy]

58. indeed. Marlene Dietrich once said

"Sex: In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact."

[nomorenomore08]

60. That is excellent.

[still_one]

15. Unless permission is granted from the victims. They are committing a crime

[BainsBane]

16. Surely they can get a court order to stop this?

[AngryAmish]

35. It is shameful that these photos are in the public

As a pure intellectual matter, what if the artists changed the photos in some way. Did Campbell's have a case against Warhol for copywrite or trademark infringement?

And does ejaculate create the transformation?

I don't know enough about copywrite.

[big_dog]

57. there are films too apparently from what TMZ said

so this a-hole can play the videos too at this art 'exhibit'

[KittyWampus]

18. I sincerely wish some artist would secretly follow "XVALA" and get the most revealing, unflattering

and personal photos possible and then print them on canvas as part of a show.

As for the gallery owner- same thing.

[HuckleB]

19. Someone is angling for 15 minutes of fame. Or infamy. Whatever. -eom-

[big_dog]

22. the problem is that this is bordering on infamy for J-Law too

private, very graphic initmate selfies with a boyfriend are not suitable for a blown up canvas public exhibition. hopefully the people will judge this as something they will be repulsed by (even if it is legal under the 1st amendment)

[HuckleB]

25. Ethics matter. So, exactly.

[AngryAmish]

37. Infamy?

She did something that lots of people do. She did not send them to anyone. She just had her privacy violated.

She is very young and foolish. I was young and foolish. Not so young now, still foolish.

I don't think I have seen her in any shows. But I don't think these pics will stop anyone from watching her shows.

[sub.theory]

24. New Laws Needed

This is outrageous. Everyone should have the right to control who is allowed to see their naked body. This is where copyright law isn't remotely enough. This is a gross violation of these women, and it's an outrage that it is being allowed.

New laws are needed that ensure everyone has complete and permanent rights to control nude images of themselves, and the laws need to have teeth. This really is bordering on sex crime. It's despicable.

[nomorenomore08]

59. CA's new "revenge porn" law is a start anyway. n/t

[tammywammy]

28. That artist doesn't have the copyright on the photos.

This should be easily shut down.

[flamingdem]

34. There are loopholes for artistic expression

and satire.

[hifiguy]

36. Indeed there are.

And this SCOTUS case describes one of them at length: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

Linked to wikipedia summary because it accurately summarizes the holding.

[pnwmom]

43. Those loopholes don't allow a whole image to be appropriated.

They don't allow photos to be stolen and subsequently used.

[flamingdem]

45. Crazy thing is that if there's a lawsuit the artist

gets great promotion. Win Win kind of.

They'll find some way to sound like they're contributing to society too.

[Hissyspit]

50. Yeah, I know what you mean. Artists suck.

Freedom of expression, too.

[flamingdem]

53. Artists don't suck

but exploitative people do suck. Especially if their work is based on privacy invasion and doesn't add much to the dialog. That remains to be seen. Maybe this artist is fabulous, it could happen.

This just seems like more celebrity obsession all the way around, not interesting.

[Blue Owl]

30. Googleheim is the new Guggenheim

[cemaphonic]

33. Copyright and stolen property issues aside,

wouldn't this fall afoul of the branch of IP law designed to allow celebrities to control their publicity and image? Even if you own the copyright to a picture of someone famous, you can't just slap it on a t-shirt and start selling them.

[hifiguy]

38. If there is a legal remedy

it is most likely under that rubric that it would be available.

[Sancho]

39. That's a few blocks from where I work...I wonder if people will see it?

[phil89]

40. Will the exhibit be considered a "sex crime"

and those who attend "sex criminals"?

[hifiguy]

44. While the law may be an ass

(in the donkey sense of the word, garbageheads , as noted by one C. Dickens, it is not ass enough to come to that exceedingly bent conclusion.

[elehhhhna]

41. will not. they know it. C&D order = no prints.

WAKE UP AMERICA. The "news" you get consists of PRESS RELEASES that are outright marketing and in subtler form, spinning. WTF do you think the media can produce with NO REPORTERS? Remember when newspapers and etc. had reporters? Investigative reporters? They're gone.

These jackwits print & broadcast whatever press releases they fancy. They just farm their goddam email inbox.

I challenge you to watch your local morning news. Fire, press release about apple, murder, press release about another big brand, etc. repeat repeat repeat.

[alarimer]

46. This is so much more than about Google or the failures of the cloud.

It's about how women (celebrities or otherwise) are STILL perceived as public property.

Notice how photos of men are almost never leaked or stolen?