{"id":3089,"date":"2014-10-04T17:40:19","date_gmt":"2014-10-04T17:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3089"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","slug":"when-celebrities-sue-google-threatened-to-be-liable-for-100-million","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/when-celebrities-sue-google-threatened-to-be-liable-for-100-million\/","title":{"rendered":"When Celebrities Sue: Google Threatened to be Liable for $100 Million"},"content":{"rendered":"

This Wednesday Google received a scathing demand letter accusing it of failing to remove private photos taken from celebrities\u2019 hacked iCloud accounts. Martin D. Singer, representing over a dozen celebrities who were victims of these hackers, threatens Google with a $100 million lawsuit for its failure to remove the photos as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
\nSinger\u2019s letter claims<\/a> that since the hacked photos were first posted over Labor Day weekend, his firm has been sending removal notices to various website operators and host providers demanding the images be removed in accordance with the DMCA, which requires Internet service providers (ISPs) and\/or hosts to act \u201cexpeditiously\u201d in removing unlawfully obtained or copyrighted images. The letter continues that the vast majority of those ISPs\/hosts, such as Twitter, removed the photos within an hour or two of receiving the DMCA notice. In contrast, many of the stolen photographs are still available on Google-owned sites, such as BlogSpot and YouTube; despite the dozens of demand letters Singer\u2019s firm claims to have sent Google over the past four weeks.<\/p>\n

\u00a0The letter claims, \u201cGoogle knows that the Images are hacked stolen property, private and confidential photos and videos unlawfully obtained and posted by pervert predators who are violating the victims\u2019 privacy rights and basic human decency\u2026Yet Google has taken little or no action to stop these outrageous violations, or to limit the Images from appearing in Google search results.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The letter places three specific demands<\/a> on Google: (1) the photographs be removed from all Google-hosted sites; (2) the user accounts for violators to be suspended or terminated; and (3) the images be removed from Google search results.
\nAlthough no individuals are specifically named in the letter, celebrities whose photos were stolen include Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence, and Rihanna. The initial hacking<\/a> occurred by means of a brute force attack on Apple\u2019s iCloud, in which the hacker took advantage of a security flaw between Apple\u2019s \u201cFind My iPhone\u201d app and the iCloud. Neither program had a limit on the number of password attempts to log in, so the hackers were able to generate and test millions of passwords until the accounts were accessed.
\nShortly after these stolen images were initially published, Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander, who has dated Upton, sent Google a legal takedown notice identifying 461 photographs of him and Upton. One week after his request, 49 percent of the identified images were still available on Google\u2019s search engine. These remained because they had inoperative URLs, featured the couple clothed, or brought up copyright questions regarding \u201cselfie\u201d ownership. The Hollywood Esquire report<\/a> on Verlander\u2019s request indicated that Google only removed half of the images based on insufficient proof of copyright ownership. All of Google\u2019s received takedown notices are available at ChillingEffects.org<\/a>, so Verlander\u2019s demand is public.
\nIn response, Google is disputing these accusations. A Google spokesperson told CNN<\/a>, \u201cWe\u2019ve removed tens of thousands of pictures \u2013 within hours of the requests being made \u2013 and we have closed hundreds of accounts. The Internet is used for many good things. Stealing people\u2019s private photos is not one of them.\u201d
\nClearly Singer doesn\u2019t think Google\u2019s current efforts are enough. In his letter, he equates Google to the NFL stating, \u201cLike the NFL, which turned a blind eye while its players assaulted and victimized women and children, Google has turned a blind eye while its sites repeatedly exploit and victimize these women.\u201d He also accuses Google of \u201cexhibit[ing] the lowest standards of ethical business conduct, and has acted dishonorably by allowing and perpetuating unlawful activity that exemplifies an utter lack of respect for women and privacy. Google\u2019s \u2018Don\u2019t be evil\u2019 motto is a sham.\u201d
\nBased on Singer\u2019s emotionally charged letter and Google\u2019s adamant denial of these allegations, chance of a quiet settlement between the parties seems unlikely. So for now, we are just left with questions of whether Google will move more quickly and remove all the photos to avoid suit, or if Singer does bring suit how successful it will be. Considering the FBI<\/a> is allegedly involved in the initial hacking investigation, this will be an interesting suit to follow at the very least.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This Wednesday Google received a scathing demand letter accusing it of failing to remove private photos taken from celebrities\u2019 hacked iCloud accounts. Martin D. Singer, representing over a dozen celebrities who were victims of these hackers, threatens Google with a $100 million lawsuit for its failure to remove the photos as required under the Digital …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3090,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3089"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3089"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7430,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3089\/revisions\/7430"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}