If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Website uses couple's image and personal photos with fake info without permission as a promo, then acts all stunned when they get sued for defamation   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 48
    More: Dumbass, Winona Valdez, anonymous post, Craigslist  
•       •       •

13976 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Aug 2013 at 8:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-23 08:01:59 PM  
Didn't Facebook do this with friends photos in ads as well, once.
 
2013-08-23 08:06:07 PM  
 
2013-08-23 08:09:46 PM  
Hi, I'm Rod Ghey Ramsey. I'd like to meet you for fun times ;) and naked hot-tubbing. Please, no prudes.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-23 08:10:21 PM  
Oh, but it's a gay couple, so it's not really defamation seeing as how all gay people are promiscuous and unable to have meaningful, devoted relationships.
 
2013-08-23 08:18:53 PM  
Cheaterville founder James McGibney claims he started the site not to hurt people, but to provide a database of information about two-timers because he's a goddamn nosy busybody.


Ego edo infantia cattus: Oh, but it's a gay couple, so it's not really defamation seeing as how all gay people are promiscuous and unable to have meaningful, devoted relationships.


Didn't RTFA, did you?
 
2013-08-23 08:24:03 PM  
And it's not the website. It's users on the website.
 
2013-08-23 08:25:17 PM  
What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-08-23 08:26:11 PM  

Mrbogey: And it's not the website. It's users on the website.


Yahoo comments had to shut down a couple of years ago because someone trolled the shiat out of some lawyer
 
2013-08-23 08:29:30 PM  
Jesus farking Christ. I thought the headline smelt like BS.


The website didn't use their photos for a promo, some random joker did.


FTA: "Cheaterville provided Powers and Valdez with the I.P. Address of the person who posted their photos, but the couple say they don't know them."


Is this another case of get the headline totally wrong on purpose to provoke a reaction?


// moron journo's spellchecker capitalized the A in "address" and no one picked it up.


/// The Yellow River, by I.P. Freely
 
2013-08-23 08:31:38 PM  
Ego edo infantia cattus: Oh, but it's a gay couple, so it's not really defamation seeing as how all gay people are promiscuous and unable to have meaningful, devoted relationships.

^^^ DRIPPING WITH SARCASM. ^^^

Didn't RTFA, did you?

Sorry for the confusion. I hope the sign helps.
To answer your question, mostly. It was long and boring.
 
2013-08-23 08:34:14 PM  
Maybe you shouldn't have posted in on facebook.
 
2013-08-23 08:39:02 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Mrbogey: And it's not the website. It's users on the website.

Yahoo comments had to shut down a couple of years ago because someone trolled the shiat out of some lawyer

~
~
That was the first time I remember Joe Q. Public going so far as to subpoena an ISP to get a troll's personal details.... coz the troll hurt their feelings.

I think it was trolls' personal details in this case[?]. Plural.
 
2013-08-23 08:42:09 PM  
The site should be fine as long as they cooperate. It's not illegal to let morons post defaming content. If it were Drew would have been sued into oblivion easily by now along with every other site that slows comments.
 
2013-08-23 08:45:18 PM  
Me thinks thou doest protest too much...

Found the spouse of an old friend of mine making a similar offer on a dating site. The 'wasn't me' defense worked wonders. (Shakes head)
 
2013-08-23 08:46:45 PM  
A website like that has no other use than to defame peoples character, I hope they get sued out of existence.
 
2013-08-23 08:47:59 PM  
So, they determined who posted the information, and it is some random stranger?

Clearly we are not seeing the whole story.  Even if no cheating happened, someone clearly went to some great effort to undermine these people online.  No one does that to total strangers without reason

/except me...I am now collecting photos from Fark profiles from this thread!
//not really
 
2013-08-23 08:59:41 PM  
This guy is a French model

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-08-23 09:04:12 PM  

AGremlin: This guy is a French model


It has to be true
 
2013-08-23 09:31:37 PM  
They are confident their lawsuit will succeed if they can argue thatthe site actually helps users create content, because its business plan is specifically based around attracting slanderous and libelous comments.

Ya guess what guys. There is long standing precedence that sites that hold user generated content aren't responsible for said content.  Otherwise Google and youtube would be sued out of business.  And if the user posted behind an anonymous proxy service... then good luck suing anybody
 
2013-08-23 09:34:27 PM  

AGremlin: This guy is a French model

[pbs.twimg.com image 482x665]


Isn't that Jean-Luc Godard?
 
2013-08-23 09:37:07 PM  
Never post your picture online.
 
2013-08-23 09:41:46 PM  

UsikFark: AGremlin: This guy is a French model

[pbs.twimg.com image 482x665]

Isn't that Jean-Luc Godard?


It's Jean Gremillon.

www.objectif-cinema.com
 
2013-08-23 09:45:00 PM  

Warlordtrooper: They are confident their lawsuit will succeed if they can argue thatthe site actually helps users create content, because its business plan is specifically based around attracting slanderous and libelous comments.

Ya guess what guys. There is long standing precedence that sites that hold user generated content aren't responsible for said content.  Otherwise Google and youtube would be sued out of business.  And if the user posted behind an anonymous proxy service... then good luck suing anybody


Yes, "common carrier" allows them to be shielded from liability of third party content. I assume there must be some legal mechanism to require removing the content once it is proved to be libel.


However, I'm guessing that this website charges a "nominal fee" of several hundred dollars to have posts like this removed.
 
2013-08-23 10:02:55 PM  
"Happily married? Jared Powers and Winona Valdez of Sacramento, California were shocked to find their details on a site exposing cheaters"


Why the question mark in the caption ?


The Daily Fail is despicable.
 
2013-08-23 10:04:03 PM  

Lars The Canadian Viking: There is long standing precedence that sites that hold user generated content aren't responsible for said content.  Otherwise Google and youtube would be sued out of business.


You still have to play ball and make some effort to remove content, like how YouTube automatically removes videos that "match" a list of copyrighted media.
 
2013-08-23 10:06:08 PM  
This is about that Tony Weiner fellow, isn't it?
 
2013-08-23 10:14:13 PM  
FTA: "Cheaterville provided Powers and Valdez with the I.P. Address of the person who posted their photos, but the couple say they don't know them."

~

Does that sound right to you?


The average Joe can discover internet account holders' names from IP addresses?!i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-23 10:34:13 PM  

Big Ramifications: FTA: "Cheaterville provided Powers and Valdez with the I.P. Address of the person who posted their photos, but the couple say they don't know them."

~

Does that sound right to you?


The average Joe can discover internet account holders' names from IP addresses?![i44.tinypic.com image 20x20]


Look up "John Doe Lawsuit". Pretty powerful thing - you aren't as protected & anonymous behind your IP address when it comes to illegal activity.
 
2013-08-23 10:39:52 PM  
So MODS, is this the new Fark headline joke? The "hot chick" thing is old and busted, now we're greenlighting articles with misleading or totally wrong Fark headlines?

Gotta say: suck-arse choice.
 
2013-08-23 10:45:35 PM  

Big Ramifications: FTA: "Cheaterville provided Powers and Valdez with the I.P. Address of the person who posted their photos, but the couple say they don't know them."

~

Does that sound right to you?


The average Joe can discover internet account holders' names from IP addresses?![i44.tinypic.com image 20x20]


If that were true there would be a whole lot of assholes getting assaulted on a regular basis.  4chan would shut down when mommies found out what there precious little snowflakes had been doing and saying online.
 
2013-08-23 10:53:40 PM  
A couple of years ago some family was surprised that their picture ended up on a Czech (I think that was it) school book. A friend was overseas and was surprised to see them on it.

With the internet and the advent of being able to plaster your image (and anyone else's) all over the place, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often. Hell when I took our dog with us to the medieval faire in June all sorts of random people were taking her picture because she had her Doggles on (she is blind and they protect the empty socket). I have no idea what they intend to do with those pictures, much less pictures that people put online of themselves.

/think people
//vengeful exes do some stupid shiat, especially if they have access to those old "special times" albums
 
2013-08-23 11:03:59 PM  
This is pretty funny, coming from the Daily Fail. That's pretty much their standard operating procedure, taking people's photos and re-using them with their own (often unrelated) story.
 
2013-08-23 11:41:53 PM  

Anastacya: A couple of years ago some family was surprised that their picture ended up on a Czech (I think that was it) school book. A friend was overseas and was surprised to see them on it.

With the internet and the advent of being able to plaster your image (and anyone else's) all over the place, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often. Hell when I took our dog with us to the medieval faire in June all sorts of random people were taking her picture because she had her Doggles on (she is blind and they protect the empty socket). I have no idea what they intend to do with those pictures, much less pictures that people put online of themselves.

/think people
//vengeful exes do some stupid shiat, especially if they have access to those old "special times" albums


You should totally wear a vest that says, "Please don't sniff my crotch, I'm working," or "Service Human," or something like that.
 
2013-08-23 11:55:12 PM  
The Daily Fail really should not be calling attention to that practice.
 
2013-08-23 11:56:29 PM  

twat_waffle: Anastacya: A couple of years ago some family was surprised that their picture ended up on a Czech (I think that was it) school book. A friend was overseas and was surprised to see them on it.

With the internet and the advent of being able to plaster your image (and anyone else's) all over the place, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often. Hell when I took our dog with us to the medieval faire in June all sorts of random people were taking her picture because she had her Doggles on (she is blind and they protect the empty socket). I have no idea what they intend to do with those pictures, much less pictures that people put online of themselves.

/think people
//vengeful exes do some stupid shiat, especially if they have access to those old "special times" albums

You should totally wear a vest that says, "Please don't sniff my crotch, I'm working," or "Service Human," or something like that.


Oh that is such a wonderful idea and I am going to do that. Thank you for making me laugh.
 
2013-08-24 12:03:56 AM  
Does the Daily Mail pay better than People? Why are these stories about Americans always in a British newspaper?
 
2013-08-24 12:30:02 AM  

TheCableGuy: Big Ramifications: > FTA: "Cheaterville provided Powers and Valdez with the I.P. Address of the person who posted their photos, but the couple say they don't know them."
~

> Does that sound right to you?

> The average Joe can discover internet account holders' names from IP addresses?!
~

Look up "John Doe Lawsuit". Pretty powerful thing - you aren't as protected & anonymous behind your IP address when it comes to illegal activity.
~


No shiat, Sherlock, but that's not what I'm saying.


Let's say I'm handed the IP address of someone who has been trolling me on a forum with graphic threats of violence. I can find out his name, piece of cake?

 
I thought only the ISP can join the dots between IP address and physical address & the internet account holder's name. This normally involves a court order of some description. That's my understanding, anyway.

 
The WRONGED couple in the article were given the IP address of the offending party. Then in the same sentence they are saying they don't know the person. That means they worked out his name, yes?

 
Doesn't sound right. Unless I've missed an advancement in the tools an ISP offers its customers.
 
2013-08-24 12:44:50 AM  

Anastacya: A couple of years ago some family was surprised that their picture ended up on a Czech (I think that was it) school book. A friend was overseas and was surprised to see them on it.

With the internet and the advent of being able to plaster your image (and anyone else's) all over the place, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often. Hell when I took our dog with us to the medieval faire in June all sorts of random people were taking her picture because she had her Doggles on (she is blind and they protect the empty socket). I have no idea what they intend to do with those pictures, much less pictures that people put online of themselves.

/think people
//vengeful exes do some stupid shiat, especially if they have access to those old "special times" albums


Today I learned that Doggles exist, and that GIS says they are adorable.
 
2013-08-24 12:53:43 AM  

whatshisname: Does the Daily Mail pay better than People? Why are these stories about Americans always in a British newspaper?



American media sells stories to keep Americans perpetually angry at those who are perceived to be in power, so a politician/candidate can make empty promises to fix the problem and be hailed as a hero.

British media sells stories to keep Brits perpetually convinced that no matter how bad things are locally, life without the monarchy is far worse.
 
2013-08-24 03:07:14 AM  

brimed03: So MODS, is this the new Fark headline joke? The "hot chick" thing is old and busted, now we're greenlighting articles with misleading or totally wrong Fark headlines?

Gotta say: suck-arse choice.


you're new here?
 
2013-08-24 05:10:08 AM  
A friend's wife had her picture taken through a peephole in a shower in France and it ended up being used on billboards all over Europe without her consent.

Oh, wait, no, that was National Lampoon's European Vacation. Never mind.
 
2013-08-24 06:51:57 AM  
Lol.
Here's a more realistic hypothetical as to what REALLY happened :  dude made the profile and his wife found it, so he lied about it, and she, not knowing this, decided to sue the site...!

"honest, honey, I have no IDEA how that got there!!!!"

Makes more sense to me than this website somehow getting ahold of this couples wedding photo, their real names and making up stories about them KNOWING full well how much potential trouble such a thing is.

And the lawsuit? A joke. What the fark are "Economic Damages," pray tell?
 
2013-08-24 08:29:05 AM  

propasaurus: This is pretty funny, coming from the Daily Fail. That's pretty much their standard operating procedure, taking people's photos and re-using them with their own (often unrelated) story.


At the core of the story, it may have been the Daily Fail who sent the website the couple's picture.
 
2013-08-24 09:20:48 AM  
This guy's working really hard to keep his affair secret.  Just get a divorce dude.
 
2013-08-24 09:24:34 AM  

Pichu0102: Didn't Facebook do this with friends photos in ads as well, once.


Nope, but some fear mongering bloggers convinced people that's what they were doing.
The whole thing was that if you "liked" a product, they might show ads for that product to your friends, and put a little "pichu0102 likes this" next to it.  They still do that.
 
2013-08-24 09:41:15 AM  

Big Ramifications: The WRONGED couple in the article were given the IP address of the offending party. Then in the same sentence they are saying they don't know the person. That means they worked out his name, yes?


It means that the author of the article omitted the steps where the lawyer representing them in the already-filed lawsuit sought and got an order for the ISP to reveal the name of the account holder. Nothing more.
 
2013-08-24 11:39:28 AM  

AndreMA: Big Ramifications: The WRONGED couple in the article were given the IP address of the offending party. Then in the same sentence they are saying they don't know the person. That means they worked out his name, yes?

It means that the author of the article omitted the steps where the lawyer representing them in the already-filed lawsuit sought and got an order for the ISP to reveal the name of the account holder. Nothing more.


~
Makes sense, cheers for that.
 
2013-08-24 11:59:45 AM  
blah blah blah a woman scorned
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report