Woman wins legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing her photos online

 

Jerome Taylor
Tuesday 10 January 2012 18:47
Comments

A woman who had sexually explicit self-portraits uploaded onto the internet after her mobile phone was stolen has won a landmark legal judgement forbidding anyone from sharing the photos online.

The case has taken the best part of three years to wind its way through the courts and centres around the thorny question of whether the judiciary can stop the dissemination of information once it has leaked onto the often unregulated world of the internet.

According to a judgement published yesterday the woman – who is only named in court papers as AMP – had her phone stolen while she was at university in June 2008. The phone contained sexually explicit images which were meant solely for sharing between her and her boyfriend at the time.

Soon after the phone went missing the images were uploaded onto a Dutch website alongside a link to her Facebook profile and a number of personal details. Internet users alerted her to the fact that the images were out there and the website took the photos down after they were contacted by AMP’s lawyers.

The judgement reveals that AMP was then contacted on Facebook by a man called Nils Henrik-Derimot, who threatened to expose her identity and distribute the photos more widely if she didn’t add him as a friend on Facebook. AMP deleted Mr Henrik-Derimot’s messages and blocked his profile.

A short while later she learned that the photos had resurfaced on a popular “bit torrent” site – which allows users to share files quickly by downloading small fragments of larger files that are later pieced back together. The files had also been uploaded with her name attached, meaning only those who knew the identity of AMP and that the photos were out there were likely to find them.

Lawyers acting on behalf of AMP went to court to try and get an injunction forbidding anyone from helping to disseminate the files. Judges are often reluctant to issue injunctions against information that has become so available it is impossible to stop – as was seen from last year’s rows over Twitter where injunctions were routinely flouted.

In this case AMP’s lawyers argued that because their client was not a celebrity, the number of people sharing the photographs of her were small and that they were mainly based in Britain and the EU. They added that their identities were largely traceable and could therefore be served with the injunction.

Mr Justice Ramsey agreed. “This is not a case where press freedom is at issue but it concerns the rights of individuals, not yet identified, to receive and impart information for which the Claimant has a right to privacy,” he ruled. “I am in no doubt that the balance falls strongly in favour of the rights of the Claimant to have her privacy respected.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in