Man cited for putting naked ex on T-shirt
Coyote
By DAN SPRINGER of the Tribune staff
An Appleton, Wis., man has been accused of handing out at least six
T-shirts at Holmen's Kornfest with a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend
on the back. Glen A. Jacob, 41, was charged Thursday in La Crosse
County District Court with representation depicting nudity and
defamation.
Jacob's ex-girlfriend filed a complaint with Holmen police after a
male friend brought her one of the shirts.
The friend told her Jacob made six shirts, but he was only able to
track down three after they were handed out at Kornfest in mid-August,
according to the criminal complaint.
The woman said Jacob snapped the image about a year ago while she was
undressing, but she didn't think anything about it because they were
still dating, according to the complaint. She said she did not give
him permission to display the photo.
The woman's friend said Jacob told him he made the shirts on a
computer "to get under (his ex-girlfriend's) skin," the complaint
said.
Judge Dennis Montabon continued Jacob's case until today so he could
seek an attorney. If convicted, Jacob would face more than three years
in prison.
--
Coyote
To reply by email, it's dexx...@mchsi.com.
Michael Snyder
> http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2003/09/12/news/z05lead.txt
>
> By DAN SPRINGER of the Tribune staff
>
> An Appleton, Wis., man has been accused of handing out at least six
> T-shirts at Holmen's Kornfest with a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend
> on the back. Glen A. Jacob, 41, was charged Thursday in La Crosse
> County District Court with representation depicting nudity and
> defamation.
Wow, interesting case. You don't need a person's permission to
take their picture, and you don't need their permission to display
the picture. He wasn't exactly invading her privacy when he took
the picture (it's not like he was peeping thru the curtains).
She didn't make any objection when he took the picture. Perhaps
in Wisconsin nobody ever wears t-shirts that depict nudity --
I wouldn't know. That certainly is not the case in California.
I think they might have some trouble making this stick.
The "defamation" charge is pretty weak too.
stargazer
"Coyote" <dexx...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tp7hmvovfjcmv20oe...@4ax.com...
I hope stories like this teach women to not let boyfriends take naked
pictures of 'em. Seems like one can't trust anybody anymore.
sg
Mhw61
>take their picture, and you don't need their permission to display
>the picture.
You do if its for commercial enterprise--although the phrase "handing them out"
indicated he wasn't.
Max
"I'll see you in the next life, wake me up for meals."
--Warren Zevon
Michael Snyder
>>You don't need a person's permission to
>>take their picture, and you don't need their permission to display
>>the picture.
>
>
> You do if its for commercial enterprise--although the phrase "handing them out"
> indicated he wasn't.
Correct. If he were selling them, that might be different.
Bo Raxo
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bka8bc$ioc$1...@stan.redhat.com...
> Coyote wrote:
> > http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2003/09/12/news/z05lead.txt
> >
> > By DAN SPRINGER of the Tribune staff
> >
> > An Appleton, Wis., man has been accused of handing out at least six
> > T-shirts at Holmen's Kornfest with a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend
> > on the back. Glen A. Jacob, 41, was charged Thursday in La Crosse
> > County District Court with representation depicting nudity and
> > defamation.
>
> Wow, interesting case. You don't need a person's permission to
> take their picture, and you don't need their permission to display
> the picture.
Bzzzz - wrong. Depends on whether the state constitution grants an explicit
right to privacy. California's does, Wisconsin is a pretty progressive
state so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't too. Or, at a minimu, their
state supreme court sees one implied somewhere.
If that's the case, then you have a right to take someone's picture without
permission if they did not have an expectation to privacy. Visible from a
public street, no expectation of privacy. In your house, curtains closed,
undressing, didn't pose for the photo: expectation of privacy.
Same reason why I can't buy a house, install hidden cameras, and rent it to
some fetching girl and put the feeds up on the internet (at least, in
California). Because of her expectation of privacy.
>He wasn't exactly invading her privacy when he took
> the picture (it's not like he was peeping thru the curtains).
A court might see it differently: being there might not invade her privacy,
but taking her picture might.
> She didn't make any objection when he took the picture.
You are assuming that if you don't assert a right immediately it is forever
lost. Courts don't agree with you on that in many cases. If a reasonable
person would conclude that she would not want her nude photo displayed in
public, then she had an expectation that he would not do so.
>Perhaps
> in Wisconsin nobody ever wears t-shirts that depict nudity --
> I wouldn't know. That certainly is not the case in California.
>
Irrelevant.
> I think they might have some trouble making this stick.
> The "defamation" charge is pretty weak too.
On the contrary, a jury is likely to hold this to be defamatory. You think
she isn't embarassed? You think a jury wouldn't have sympathy? You think
the news stories won't be cited as just how far her embarassment has spread?
Defamation is all in the eyes of the jury. Get an older, preacher-type
lawyer stroking the jury's sympathies, and this guy is toast. Big civil
damages, possibly. Remember, juries are usually made up of old people, the
unemployed/unemployable, and government employees.
Not exactly the types to say "tough luck, sister, and where can I get me one
of them shirts?"
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"stargazer" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lj1ab.320$9u3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> I hope stories like this teach women to not let boyfriends take naked
> pictures of 'em. Seems like one can't trust anybody anymore.
>
> sg
>
Bite your tongue! Taking naked pictures of your girlfriend is one of life's
great pleasures. Some girls really love showing off for the camera, and
figure someday they'll be old and saggy and want to look back and remember
when they had a hot bod. I'm not making this up, this is the exact reason
two previous women I've been involved with put it.
I would hope most guys are like me: soon after the breakup you get rid of
whatever shots you have around of her. Especially since you'll catch hell if
a current girlfriend ever finds naughty photos of a previous one.
One ex-girlfriend had a lingerie shot I'd taken of her blown up and gave it
to me as a Christmas gift, many months after she'd dumped me. We were
friends by then, and it was her way of saying...well, a lot of things, she
was a complicated woman.
Point being, it isn't always a creepy thing, even after the relationship is
over.
Bo
stargazer
"Bo Raxo" <cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:Ypcab.7269$UN4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Hey Bo, where did I say it was a creepy thing? My point was, don't let
casual acquaintances take photos of you that you don't want thrown around
*after* a breakup. I've already told my daughters "by the way, there are
some *pictures* around here somewhere, but over the years I seem to have
*misplaced 'em*, so after I'm gone, just in case, while you're going through
my stuff, don't be surprised if you might turn up a few pictures of *mom*
that you might not want to keep in the *family album*." ;) Now days it's
way too easy for your *pictures* to end up online somewhere, so be sure
you're *sure* about who ever you allow access to those pictures, because
some of the scum you might be dating, might not be as gentlemanly as others.
It's an ethics thing. It's not the pictures I object to, it's who has them.
I made sure the only people I allowed to take pictures of me, weren't guys
who would throw them around, threaten me with them, try to hurt me with them
someday.
sg
>
>
Coyote
Please find the pics, star...I wanna see 'em!! hehehe
Karen O'Mara
> Hey Bo, where did I say it was a creepy thing? My point was, don't let
> casual acquaintances take photos of you that you don't want thrown around
> *after* a breakup. I've already told my daughters "by the way, there are
> some *pictures* around here somewhere, but over the years I seem to have
> *misplaced 'em*, so after I'm gone, just in case, while you're going through
> my stuff, don't be surprised if you might turn up a few pictures of *mom*
> that you might not want to keep in the *family album*." ;) Now days it's
> way too easy for your *pictures* to end up online somewhere, so be sure
> you're *sure* about who ever you allow access to those pictures, because
> some of the scum you might be dating, might not be as gentlemanly as others.
> It's an ethics thing. It's not the pictures I object to, it's who has them.
> I made sure the only people I allowed to take pictures of me, weren't guys
> who would throw them around, threaten me with them, try to hurt me with them
> someday.
You just have to assume that your nude image may resurface where you
least expect it, which I imagine is part of the appeal.
Dr. Laura Schlesinger survived the haunt, anyway.
Karen
Michael Snyder
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:bka8bc$ioc$1...@stan.redhat.com...
>
>>Coyote wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2003/09/12/news/z05lead.txt
>>>
>>>By DAN SPRINGER of the Tribune staff
>>>
>>>An Appleton, Wis., man has been accused of handing out at least six
>>>T-shirts at Holmen's Kornfest with a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend
>>>on the back. Glen A. Jacob, 41, was charged Thursday in La Crosse
>>>County District Court with representation depicting nudity and
>>>defamation.
>>
>>Wow, interesting case. You don't need a person's permission to
>>take their picture, and you don't need their permission to display
>>the picture.
>
>
> Bzzzz - wrong. Depends on whether the state constitution grants an explicit
> right to privacy. California's does, Wisconsin is a pretty progressive
> state so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't too. Or, at a minimu, their
> state supreme court sees one implied somewhere.
Which part do you feel is wrong? I know you don't need a person's
permission to take their picture, because my niece is studying to
be a photographer, and one of her assignments is to photograph
people without their permission, and if they get upset, to explain
to them that she does not need their permission.
So, are you saying that she could not display these photos in
a gallery show of her work? I'd be very surprised if that were
true, even in california. What's a Paparazzi, after all, but
someone who takes people's photographs without their permission,
and sells them to tabloids for publication?
> If that's the case, then you have a right to take someone's picture without
> permission if they did not have an expectation to privacy. Visible from a
> public street, no expectation of privacy. In your house, curtains closed,
> undressing, didn't pose for the photo: expectation of privacy.
Her house, maybe. My house, no.
> Same reason why I can't buy a house, install hidden cameras, and rent it to
> some fetching girl and put the feeds up on the internet (at least, in
> California). Because of her expectation of privacy.
Bo, this isn't applicable. He didn't hide the camera, he took the
picture openly, he wasn't in her house, she was in his.
>>He wasn't exactly invading her privacy when he took
>>the picture (it's not like he was peeping thru the curtains).
>
>
> A court might see it differently: being there might not invade her privacy,
> but taking her picture might.
I'm sure it would not.
>
>
>>She didn't make any objection when he took the picture.
>
>
> You are assuming that if you don't assert a right immediately it is forever
> lost.
Of course. It's rather like rape. If she didn't object when it
happened, she can't come back months later and say it was rape.
> Courts don't agree with you on that in many cases. If a reasonable
> person would conclude that she would not want her nude photo displayed in
> public, then she had an expectation that he would not do so.
Maybe if she was in her own home. Otherwise, not.
Salwar Kameez
> computer "to get under (his ex-girlfriend's) skin," the complaint
> said.
Oh, well, if he made them using those do-it-yourself T-shirt transfers
like in an office supply store, they won't last through the first
washing.
Michael Snyder
Who's planning to wash them? ;-)
stargazer
I can't remember what reminded me of them one day, but something did, and I
realized I couldn't remember where I'd hidden 'em anymore. I did look for
'em some, and finally when my daughters and I were chatting one day, I said
"by the way". ;-) They thought it was pretty funny. At first they
thought I was just teasing them, cause I am a big tease. Like they
wouldn't believe me, I used to skinny dip most hot nights after dh and I
would go for our nightly walk, and they knew that, so they didn't have a
hard time believing the 'picture story' was true too.
star
Bo Raxo
Not in a public place. "Expectation of privacy". If I am a guest in your
home (or you're a guest in mine) I might have an expectation of privacy that
nobody will be taking a picture. Public space, private space, substantially
different rights.
>
> So, are you saying that she could not display these photos in
> a gallery show of her work? I'd be very surprised if that were
> true, even in california. What's a Paparazzi, after all, but
> someone who takes people's photographs without their permission,
> and sells them to tabloids for publication?
Public space, private space. Expectation of privacy.
>
>
> > If that's the case, then you have a right to take someone's picture
without
> > permission if they did not have an expectation to privacy. Visible from
a
> > public street, no expectation of privacy. In your house, curtains
closed,
> > undressing, didn't pose for the photo: expectation of privacy.
>
> Her house, maybe. My house, no.
A court might agree with you on that one, perhaps.
>
>
> > Same reason why I can't buy a house, install hidden cameras, and rent it
to
> > some fetching girl and put the feeds up on the internet (at least, in
> > California). Because of her expectation of privacy.
>
> Bo, this isn't applicable. He didn't hide the camera, he took the
> picture openly, he wasn't in her house, she was in his.
But did she know he was going to take the photo? If the picture is not
posed, she can argue she had an expectation that what was happening in that
house would be viewed by him solely, and not photographed or reproduced for
viewing by others.
>
>
> >>He wasn't exactly invading her privacy when he took
> >>the picture (it's not like he was peeping thru the curtains).
> >
> >
> > A court might see it differently: being there might not invade her
privacy,
> > but taking her picture might.
>
> I'm sure it would not.
>
Okay, take a phone conversation. You and I can talk on the phone, fine.
But if you tape record the conversation without my knowledge, in the state
of California you have broken the law.
I'll see if I can track down a case on point.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 1 Media L.Rptr. 2417 (9th Cir. 1971).
Dietemann invited a reporter in to his home to interview him. The reporter,
unknown to Dietemann, had a concealed camera and tape recorder. The court
held that Dietemann had only consented to a face-to-face interview, and the
concealed camera and recording were violations of privacy.
Here's what a journalism professor had to say about his rule of thumb on the
subject
http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/archive/1999-03mar/msg00178.html
"The real question is: Does the person being photographed have a "reasonable
expectation of privacy?" If so, then you are infringing on their rights. A
reasonable expectation of privacy is, for example, someone in their own home
or other private place engaging in matters not for the consumption of others
outside the private dwelling/residence."
I think she expected that her nudity was for his private viewing and she did
not expect it to be viewed by others.
I suspect a jury would award damages, but that's just my guess.
Bo
stargazer
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:A1wab.9061$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
And this is a Wisconsin jury, in a more rural area.
sg
>
>
formica63
Bo Raxo <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:A1wab.9061$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
The Snyder niece might actually have some trouble exhibiting those pictures.
Celebrities have a different expectation of privacy than everyday people,
which is why the paparazzi can get away with dogging them.
>
> >
> >
> > > If that's the case, then you have a right to take someone's picture
> without
> > > permission if they did not have an expectation to privacy. Visible
from
> a
> > > public street, no expectation of privacy. In your house, curtains
> closed,
> > > undressing, didn't pose for the photo: expectation of privacy.
> >
> > Her house, maybe. My house, no.
>
> A court might agree with you on that one, perhaps.
I doubt it. Permission to take a photograph is not the same as permission
to publish it.
I am very sure you are correct.
Form.
Michael Snyder
"Might"? "Do"? "Legally entitled to"? As far as I know, you don't
have any legal rights in my home other than the same ones you would
have in a public place.
formica63
In fact, you are quite wrong about this. Google up "duty of care."
Form.