A very good point, subby. However, they may be drawbacks to it as well.

Pics cause it happened.

Vanessa Hudgens is suing a Web site that refuses to remove naked photos

When I was her age the only celebrity pictures you got were the ones published in print -- model sessions, publicity events, and stalker photos. If the only nude photos were in some obscure Italian magazine, you had to go to a lot of work to get a copy. Those were rare photos.

Then in the 1990s we got scanners, higher speed connections, and freedom from the NSFnet AUP. And people on the net would still use as bait offers to sell "rare" celebrity photos. And I would laugh to myself and ignore, because there was no longer any such thing as a "rare" picture of a hot celebrity.

So I guess my point is, I sympathize but anybody who really wants to see her naked is going to, from now to eternity.

/ghost of Christmas past

ZAZ: When I was her age the only celebrity pictures you got were the ones published in print -- model sessions, publicity events, and stalker photos. If the only nude photos were in some obscure Italian magazine, you had to go to a lot of work to get a copy. Those were rare photos.

Another advantage of a military career. I got to see nude shots of American celebrities in overseas magazines, like Linda Blair in an Australian mag.

Surprised these haven't been on the Intertubes either in present day.

/Copyrighted nude shots?

That big hot pink link offering a "Look Back at a Decade of Disney Star Scandals" was awfully tempting, but I think I will pass.

"But several sites, namely MoeJackson.com, continue to run the pics despite what her lawyers cry is a copyright violation."

Not a link, but good enough for research.

Copyrighted nude shots?

As I understand copyright law, your snapsnots of yourself naked are protected by copyright. One could argue that they lack the creativity needed to win copyright protection. I think that's a losing argument. One could also argue that there was no commercial intent so posting them is "fair use." That's a better argument. Probably still wouldn't convince a jury.

Copyright is more straightforward than invasion of privacy, trade secrets, and so forth. So that's what people sue over.

ZAZ: Copyrighted nude shots?

As I understand copyright law, your snapsnots of yourself naked are protected by copyright. One could argue that they lack the creativity needed to win copyright protection. I think that's a losing argument. One could also argue that there was no commercial intent so posting them is "fair use." That's a better argument. Probably still wouldn't convince a jury.

Copyright is more straightforward than invasion of privacy, trade secrets, and so forth. So that's what people sue over.

Property rights > Any other rights

As long as you can claim that something is your property, you suddenly have a much stronger case in the U.S. court system, rather than if you're speaking of something as obscure and worthless as "rights".

The only thing young strapping miss Hudgens should be sad about, is the fact that she didn't record it as nude video. Then she could have the MPAA protect her intellectual property rights, which would mean a witchhunt could span several continents and include fines worth millions of dollars.

Sooo... Hudgens either has a new project about to release, or her future prospects aren't looking too good. Which is it?



/Attention whore needs attention

FTH: "Listen kids. If you're going to pose nude, the picutures will end up on the internet make sure the photos taken are many in number and high in quality, and they will be there forever gloriously"

That's better.

She's not very smart, is she?

I assume since she's Disney property that this ISN'T about publicity.

However, she's cute, and the nude and lingerie shots aren't bad. While she may regret the photos going anywhere other than a personal photo album, she has no need to be ashamed of them.

Trying to sue them back into oblivion is just a waste of money.

Thank you, internet.

The internet giveth, the vapid teen starlet can never taketh away.

I went to the site mentioned in TFA, but I was unable to find a sampling of such disturbing material.

Should anyone volunteer, say, to provide a direct path to said material, I would be outraged.

wow, she has quite the bush there.

where are these so called pics?

FTFA: "it was really tough because I'm a private person and for something like that to happen, it's so mean."


Somebody cue the "Welcome to Fark the internet" pic.

Link somebody, I'm super lazy.

Freakin Rican: where are these so called pics?

GIS Vanessa Hudgens nude

arenaninja: I went to the site mentioned in TFA, but I was unable to find a sampling of such disturbing material.

Should anyone volunteer, say, to provide a direct path to said material, I would be outraged.

Link (new window)


Hit "Images" and turn off safe search.

*note to self, keep cameras of any kind away from children until they move out*

it's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool

Cornwell: ZAZ: Copyrighted nude shots?

As I understand copyright law, your snapsnots of yourself naked are protected by copyright. One could argue that they lack the creativity needed to win copyright protection. I think that's a losing argument. One could also argue that there was no commercial intent so posting them is "fair use." That's a better argument. Probably still wouldn't convince a jury.

Copyright is more straightforward than invasion of privacy, trade secrets, and so forth. So that's what people sue over.

Property rights > Any other rights

As long as you can claim that something is your property, you suddenly have a much stronger case in the U.S. court system, rather than if you're speaking of something as obscure and worthless as "rights".

The only thing young strapping miss Hudgens should be sad about, is the fact that she didn't record it as nude video. Then she could have the MPAA protect her intellectual property rights, which would mean a witchhunt could span several continents and include fines worth millions of dollars.



"WAAAAHHHH THE MAN WON'T LET ME DOWNLOAD SHIAT FOR FREE WHY CANT I HAVE STUFF FOR FREE WHENEVER I WANT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"

I stubbled across that once.

Unsung_Hero: I assume since she's Disney property that this ISN'T about publicity.

Heee! That's funny.

SnakeMan: Cornwell: ZAZ: Copyrighted nude shots?

As I understand copyright law, your snapsnots of yourself naked are protected by copyright. One could argue that they lack the creativity needed to win copyright protection. I think that's a losing argument. One could also argue that there was no commercial intent so posting them is "fair use." That's a better argument. Probably still wouldn't convince a jury.

Copyright is more straightforward than invasion of privacy, trade secrets, and so forth. So that's what people sue over.

Property rights > Any other rights

As long as you can claim that something is your property, you suddenly have a much stronger case in the U.S. court system, rather than if you're speaking of something as obscure and worthless as "rights".

The only thing young strapping miss Hudgens should be sad about, is the fact that she didn't record it as nude video. Then she could have the MPAA protect her intellectual property rights, which would mean a witchhunt could span several continents and include fines worth millions of dollars.



"WAAAAHHHH THE MAN WON'T LET ME DOWNLOAD SHIAT FOR FREE WHY CANT I HAVE STUFF FOR FREE WHENEVER I WANT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"


You don't really "get" humor, do you?

SnakeMan: Cornwell: ZAZ: Copyrighted nude shots?

As I understand copyright law, your snapsnots of yourself naked are protected by copyright. One could argue that they lack the creativity needed to win copyright protection. I think that's a losing argument. One could also argue that there was no commercial intent so posting them is "fair use." That's a better argument. Probably still wouldn't convince a jury.

Copyright is more straightforward than invasion of privacy, trade secrets, and so forth. So that's what people sue over.

Property rights > Any other rights

As long as you can claim that something is your property, you suddenly have a much stronger case in the U.S. court system, rather than if you're speaking of something as obscure and worthless as "rights".

The only thing young strapping miss Hudgens should be sad about, is the fact that she didn't record it as nude video. Then she could have the MPAA protect her intellectual property rights, which would mean a witchhunt could span several continents and include fines worth millions of dollars.



"WAAAAHHHH THE MAN WON'T LET ME DOWNLOAD SHIAT FOR FREE WHY CANT I HAVE STUFF FOR FREE WHENEVER I WANT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"

Did you pay your copyright for that pic? Excuse me, picuture?

Shave that shiat girl.

SnakeMan: "WAAAAHHHH THE MAN WON'T LET ME DOWNLOAD SHIAT FOR FREE WHY CANT I HAVE STUFF FOR FREE WHENEVER I WANT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"

Nope, I'm way outside RIAA/MPAA jurisdiction and tend to download shiat for free. As long as I don't decide to set up a petabyte server for distributing torrents, I'm pretty much safe.

It's more that I'm pointing out that the United States has a insane legal system where the notion of property and ownership is more important than fundamental rights, or the lives of other people.

The claim that RIAA/MPAA is allowed to police the world on their own, using methods that are unavailable to police forces such as illegal signal interception or entrapment in order to send people claims for "lost revenue" that are outrageous, should go rather undisputed. The RIAA/MPAA is a scam, simple as that. It is a money machine that serves only itself, and leaves nothing for the clients it argues to be acting on behalf of, i.e.. the artists.

So excuse me while I download a few more albums, and rather go to live venues which leaves the artist in question with a dollar per ticket, rather than cents per album.

RockIsDead: I stubbled across that once.

flyingMermaid: Unsung_Hero: I assume since she's Disney property that this ISN'T about publicity.

Heee! That's funny.

I thought Disney was still worrying about their 'child-friendly' image and went for other kinds of publicity.

Ms. Hudgens needs to be more conscientious about who she sends her cell phone photos to. She should have learned early on that "private" photos can be leaked by the housekeeper, a thief, someone who recovered the cell phone she left in a restaurant after a 12-vodka dinner, Zac Efron, or her publicist.

On top of that, anyone who looks that good in cell phone photos should not be wearing clothing at any time.

"'Cuz remember, once you download a pic it's yours to keep."

those pictures remind me of the Onion's prom advice...something to the effect of 'trim your beav because no one wants to go down on a gorilla salad'.

MIguy: Shave that shiat girl.

No thanks i like it that way

If these pictures hadn't surfaced, I'd have no idea who she was, and this is not an uncommon thing in celebrity-land. Just leverage it into a career away from the Disney monolith and ride the crest of this new-found adult fame. If Paris Hilton can go from an obscure socialite to becoming a household name even your grandma can love even after sucking cock on video, you can surely "live this down." Nobody farking cares that much anymore anyway.

"it was really tough because I'm a private person and for something like that to happen, it's so mean."

Since I'm so "private," I went into a business which guarantees absolutely no privacy and requires me to whore myself out to any and all publicity necessary to "move the merchandise."

FAIL.

The more women who have nude photos circulating the more acceptable it will become.

When the day arrives that the hottie in the next cubicle can show me her latest spread-beaver photo and nobody complains, I'll be a happy man. If that photo happens to involve the hottie in the next cubicle after that doing the spreading, even better.

Seriously, though... I can't imagine having a problem with an attractive woman putting explicit shots of herself on the Internet, unless I was a teenage boy and it was my mother or something.

MIguy: Shave that shiat girl.

she still hasn't shaved since the last batch?

Cornwell: SnakeMan: "WAAAAHHHH THE MAN WON'T LET ME DOWNLOAD SHIAT FOR FREE WHY CANT I HAVE STUFF FOR FREE WHENEVER I WANT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"

Nope, I'm way outside RIAA/MPAA jurisdiction and tend to download shiat for free. As long as I don't decide to set up a petabyte server for distributing torrents, I'm pretty much safe.

It's more that I'm pointing out that the United States has a insane legal system where the notion of property and ownership is more important than fundamental rights, or the lives of other people. (emphasis added)

Ok here's the thing chief. Property is a right. Not only that, its a right that is actually named in the constitution (yes i know that it is in fact a negative right, but shush). Additionally, Intellectual Property is both a property right under the 5th and 14th, but also a statutory right with direct constitutional authority under Art I, s 8, cl 8. Thus the fact that the federal government actually follows its formative document for a change really shouldnt be decried.

Do I happen to like the makey-up rights that got tucked into the Due Process clause because the court realized that the constitution is actually pretty skimpy on rights? Yup. Do I think that in a challenge between the explicit right of property and an implied right to (well what exactly? Right to information? Right to see nude celebritants?) that the explicit right will likely win? yup again.

What's with all the guys freaking out over her pubic hair?

You need to change your Fark handle to "John Ruskin."

flyingMermaid: Sooo... Hudgens either has a new project about to release, or her future prospects aren't looking too good. Which is it?



/Attention whore needs attention

This. It's not about the nude pics, it's about her career. Hudgens must have gotten a look at the people who had a career in their teens that suddenly vanished when they had to deal with the real world. So instead of waiting for Disney to can her, she leaks a few nude pics, gets her contract changed or cancelled, and starts making movies because she's not afraid to get 'adult.' Sadly, this never works because after the initial appeal of the forbidden nudity, she becomes yet another nameless yet hot actress that are a dime a dozen.

She's playing the odds. But those same odds are against her in every way.

The only reason this happens is because all women are deep down whores and have to whore around with their whoring.

Cornwell: Nope, I'm way outside RIAA/MPAA jurisdiction

What about the Berne Convention?

She keeps her twat hairy!

Some of the pics I've found look photoshopped... hrm. You can be the judge

NSFW etc. copy/paste

http://filefap.com/public/viewset/16128

I know a few of those are the real pics from 2007, but others just look like her head was photoshopped on someone else's body.

Who put the gun to her head to force her to pose nude? See what I mean?

ignite ice: I know a few of those are the real pics from 2007, but others just look like her head was photoshopped on someone else's body.

yeah, around 50% of those are real, but the others are REALLY obvious shoops.

Straelbora: What's with all the guys freaking out over her pubic hair?

You need to change your Fark handle to "John Ruskin."

I dunno about "freaking out", but hairy pussies are *not* attractive.

/at least do some real close trimming, fer chrissake
//no one likes going on safari when they go down there