Boss of revenge porn site wants Google to take articles down because they have 'unauthorised' photos of him

Craig Brittain complained about articles making 'unauthorized use' of photos

Andrew Griffin
Wednesday 25 February 2015 11:46 GMT
Comments
The 'Google' logo is seen on a tablet screen on December 4, 2012 in Paris.
The 'Google' logo is seen on a tablet screen on December 4, 2012 in Paris. (LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Image)

A man who ran a revenge porn site to share stolen nude images of people is demanding Google stop showing articles about his site.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January banned Craig Brittain’s site IsAnyoneDown from posting pictures and ordered him to delete the images he had already collected. Brittain is now trying to have that ruling, as well as articles about it, to be taken down from Google.

He says that the links are examples of “unauthorized use of photos of me and other related information”, according to Ars Technica.

The complaint, made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) refers to the FTC’s press release about the notice as well as articles reporting its decision.

The FTC’s release said that Brittain had tricked women on Craigslist into sending him nude pictures, and then posting them on his site without permission. He also paid users $100 in exchange for photos and information about certain people.

The site ran services called “Takedown Hammer” and “Takedown Lawyer” which claimed to be independent of the main site and allowed users to pay between $200 and $500 to have pictures of them taken down.

DCMA requests allow users to ask internet companies like Google to take down links to sites that are infringing copyright. But Ars Technica notes that a number of legal precedents are on the side of the FTC and other news sources in this case.

Ars Technica also notes that the requests would probably not be admitted under the EU’s “Right To Be Forgotten” ruling, which allows users to ask Google to take down information if they are “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant”.

Join our 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