Wow! Creepy that's she was only fourteen. Happens all the time though, a month ago I googled my name, found a personal pic and information picked from the net on two different porn personal sites in other countries.

What can you do?

Using a fourteen-year-old to market porno can't be legal, permission or not.

Reading her post, she's said "I've contacted about three solictors near to where I live - they all say they cannot do anything because the company is based in Texas, USA. I've tried contacting lawyers over in America but not a lot of them will reply, a few lawyers that have told me I need at least £50,000 to take it on."

That's bizarre and clearly incorrect. Even in Texas, invasion of privacy still is an actionable tort.

I suppose that the horrid tort caps in Texas could have something to do with this...

Yikes... and people wonder why I squeamish about getting my picture taken these days :-(
Good luck Lara!

Besides having a 14 year old on the cover of their latest DVD, they also have a 10 year old working in their customer service department - judging by the glaring grammatical errors.

Ha! I really enjoyed "house whole name". I assume that was meant to be household. Talk about hooked on phonics. The ignorance is truly phenomenal.

Oh, and instead of trying to find a lawyer, maybe she could file a complaint with government entities that regulate porn?

How do I join said entity?

I represent the company TVX which was mentioned in the article posted on Gawker Media's site.

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/attention-pornographers/lara-is-not-a-porn-star-263775.php)

The original photo of Lara was located on a free adult shareware site this past January, and after discussing the error and speaking to her - it was immediately replaced.

The websites she mentions in her rant (http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/13087896/?offset=50) still feature the older cover, and they have not changed that image -but are selling the film with the revised cover - which can be seen at..

http://www.tvxfilms.com/sales/images/jpgs/BodyMagic.jpg

If you have any questions whatsoever, or would like to speak to the ownerat TVX personally to verify this information, - do contact.

TVX Films - Attn: Bob • (888) 877-9993

I'd bet that because her face is obscured, the actual damages are very low. Too low to pay for the lawyer.

There has got to be a young lawyer in TX looking to get his names in the headlines that will take this on a pro bono / contingent fee basis. Contact the Texas Bar Young Lawyers Division Trial Bar, they may be able to help.

what ass wholes!
Seriously though,the answer to lilmiscantberong's question , "what can you do? " is show better judgment and more common sense in the first place. Once you publish anything on the internet what happens to it is out of your control. A couple of weeks ago I was listening to a radio current affairs show called Ontario Today. They had a phone-in about websites like Myspace and Facebook. A mother phoned in to say that she used them to keep in touch with a group of women who had babies around the same age as hers - sharing stories and pictures. A few minutes later a retired police officer who had worked on a child pornography task force called in to warn that pornographers lurk on sites like these, download the photos, alter them so that they are sexualized , and circulate them as child pornography.
I absolutely don't condone TVX films , or anybody else for that matter misappropriating this or any other image, and I hope Lara can get compensation. But no amount of compensation is going to undo this.

She needs to get the RIAA's layers on the case. Extortion over copyright infringement is their specialty.

Surely a reader in Texas could just phone a few local Senators or journalists (of a certain kind) and inform them that "this porn company is taking pictures of minors off the internet to advertise their product"? I mean, that sentence alone would be dynamite. A chance to use scaremongering for good, not evil.

This is truly amazing. That someone would make a porn movie cover photograph of someone who doesn't even appear in the film, hasn't given their permission, and is freaking underage, is so arrogant and stupid that I can't even describe it here.

@wonderskunk:

You are absolutely correct. If I had not wanted my picture to be available, I would not have put it out there. I do understand the consequences, many innocent people do not.

My motto: "You do it to yourself"

But was the picture posted at deviantART (?!) identified as that of a fourteen year old ? I wouldn't necessarily have guessed that she was that young just by looking at the picture. ( Of course, misappropriating the picture was wrong in and of itself.)

I'm wondering why she can't just locate the local police in the town or district in which the company is based. If there is anything illegal about using her image or the fact that she is underage, the police should be able to do something or at least contact a county prosecutor.

I do know that there was some law passed a few years back to crack down on underage actresses in "adult situations" that made penalties for using underage actresses and models much more severe. I don't remember what it's called officially since that isn't remotely the kind of photography my company does but I did see it in a trade publication.

Of course, I'm no expert here.

Uhh, wouldn't that perhaps violate the kiddie porn laws? Or at least imply a violation of kiddie porn laws?

Contact the texas Attorney General's office and the local DA where they are headquartered.

I just checked the deviantART terms of service. Article 13, terms of service states:3. Registration

"To register as a member of the Service or purchase products, you must be 18 years or lawfully permitted to enter into and form contracts under applicable law. In no event may minors submit Content to the Service. You agree that the information that you provide to us upon registration, at the time of purchase, and at all other times will be true"
So the creeps at TVX films would be able that she lied about her age and they were honestly mistaken.

@wonderskunk: How many 14 year olds do you think really understand this?

She's STILL not of age to be associated with porn.

@Smashville: Most of them. This wasn't a candid snapshot posted on somebody else's web-page without her knowledge. This is a deliberately created artistic self-portrait. She then chose to post it on the web. A four year old is that naive, not a fourteen year old.

@wonderskunk: Doesn't matter. First, there is a strong copyright infringement claim regardless of the question of age. Second, there is a strong claim for invasion of privacy. The question of her age has no bearing on either of these, and even still, the creeps at TVX films cannot claim honest mistake based on the DeviantArt TOS. Child pornography is a strict-liability offense. Knowledge, intent, etc. are irrelevant-the only question is was the subject underage. That said, this isn't quite child pornography-the picture at issue is not pornography, indecent, or obscene (if it was, DeviantArt and the Consumerist wouldn't still have it up!). I am unsure if there is a specific statute barring using an otherwise legal image of a 14-year-old girl to sell pornograpy. Still, it may be an avenue worth investigating.

My advice for Lara is actually to try to contact Larry Flynt, tell her story, and see if he would be willing to have Hustler's legal team take up her case. It would be a great way for Flynt and Hustler to get goodwill and show that there is honor and decency in the pornographic profession.

That is disgusting. I mean, wow.

That email is from the PRESIDENT of the company? God I`d hate to see the other workers...

I love the content of the email though, "lol u r obviusly uglee so da dvd floped lol we did u a favor by putin ur piktur hur!11"

I hope everything works out for her though.

As far as I can see, the issue that she should go down is one of copyright infringement. I'm not sure of the T&Cs at DeviantART but if she took the photo and the DVD company is using it without permission, them BOOM. Done and Done.

@lilmiscantberong:

asl s2r

@wonderskunk: That doesn't excuse the "adult film" company from doing their due diligence. US Code 2257 which was enacted a couple of years ago requires producers of sexually explicit material to attain proof of age for every model they shoot, and keep those records on hand. Federal inspectors may - at any time - launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.Wiki explains.

I am not an attorney, but my instinct is that even idf her photo was just on the cover of an adult film, she would fall under those guidelines. She may not be able to get money out of them, but she could get them shut down. She should contact the Texas Attorney General. I'm sure that Texas probably isn't exactly porn friendly.

@kimdog: Maybe. But Lara's original picture was not sexually explicit, and I don't see any signs that TVX films altered it to make it sexually explicit. So the creeps may be just inside the fine line.
I agree with Nevin. The issue is that they misappropriated her picture. She clearly has a good case with that.

Sorry for the long comment, but there's a lot of issues here.

Ok, I'll attempt to clear up some of the confusion regarding a Texas cause of action.

First, the primary cause of action Lara may attempt to recover on is an intentional tort of invasion of the right of privacy for misappropriation of her image. The elements in Texas are as follows: 1) There must be an identification of the person claiming misappropriation of his or her identity; and 2) the appropriation must involve a tortious use of a person's name or likeness. Lara has both elements here.

Lara may recover money damages, "measured by the value of defendant's unjust enrichment." Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 335.06. Exemplary damages may also be available. Interesting, in Texas (and most of the U.S.), invasion of privacy for misappropriation is viewed as a property interest, hence the "value of unjust enrichment" language.

@Patchmonkey regarding the "horrid tort caps in Texas." The Texas Tort Reform Act has a lot of major problems, and I agree that it is a "horrid" statute. But, it does not limit the recovery of damages in an intentional tort, and does not even come into play in this case.

@those who are advocating criminal action, I don't believe that action will succeed, but I'm not a criminal expert. My understanding on child porn law is that because Lara herself is not pictured in a sexual act, it is not technically child pornography. However, like I mentioned, my knowledge of the law in the area of child pornography law is limited.

Regarding Lara's attempts to retain a lawyer in Texas. As mentioned in the facts, Lara states the lawyers she has spoken with require a £50,000 retainer. I have a feeling there is more to the story here. The attorney(s) must have stated a reason for the high retainer fee. Someone mentioned the low amount of damages. This is a reason not take a case-but only if the attorney is working on a contingency basis. There are plenty of attorneys in Texas who work at an hourly rate.

I suspect the high retainer requirement has to do with an arm's length relationship with an overseas, minor-age client. Like everyone else, lawyers are susceptible to online scams and are hesitant about taking on an unknown individual client residing in another nation. But again, that's just a guess.

I enjoyed the Texas Young Lawyers comment, but I don't think this story is newsworthy enough for an attorney to pick up on the cheap. I recommend starting with the county bar association in the county in which this company is located. Or use a service such as findlaw.com. Find a member who does personal injury or tort law (that won't be hard). I prefer to deal with smaller firms and solo people because fees are usually lower, but that's a personal preference. If the lawyer won't take the case, ask the lawyer for a referral. You should find someone willing to take it soon. If not, there's an unknown issue here.

Best of luck, Lara. Not all of us Texans are scumbags like company (just a high percentage of us).

I think "Body Magic" would look better with TKO's 'punched underwear' photo.

On the upside, pretty great shot, Lara!

Grins

As a photographer, I have the following input:

There are 2 issues: 1) as the photographer and creator of the copyrigthed work, she would be entitled to damages based on the market value of the photography and the revenues it helped earn for the porno guys.

2) as the subject of the photo, she never agreed to have her image associated with a porno film - that would be a whole separate invasion of privacy issue.

*** and if she won these claims in a court, the defendant could be responsible fo all of HER legal fees.

Her mistake was in contacting the slob directly, she should have written a formal letter through a lawyer to begin with, threatening legal action, which may have been resolved with a monetarty settlement.

With his ALL CAPS and horrible grammar, he's trying to blow her off, although the response could be a clear admission of guilt.

plus these things are selling at $25 a pop, x 1000 or even 10,000, thats alot of money. The image used on the cover is the most valueable piece of artwork for something like this. The license to use an image as advertisement such as this would be worth at least $5,000, depending on the amount duplicated.

the dude is going to claim he lost money on the dvd and then whaddya gonna do? what value? how can you prove he made any money on it? subpoena his altered and crooked paperwork?

if sony did this then it could be actionable but chasing down some pornographer in texas who probably lives in a PO box seems seems chancy at best, especially from overseas.

she should probably write this one off.

I can give you a referral for an attorney in the Dallas area that may take the case, but on an hourly rate. If you're interested, post up, and I can pass the info and referral along to Consumerist staff.

@wonderskunk: If you have a parent's permission, you can join.

I'm right next to Texas. I might make a few calls, this is just sick.

@Black Bellamy: Porn is a very lucrative industry, people are in it to make money.

A quick search on google shows a very conservative Forbes article valueing adult video sales alone at up to 1.8 BILLION annually.

Yeah, uh, first comes the criminal trial, and then comes the civil suit. First they use a minor's likeness to market pornography, then they send her what may be the most self-incriminating email of all time. Dorks.

Plus I think in a court, she would not have to prove how much money was made by TVX to put a value of the work and its misuse.

I really hope this gets resolved fairly. I'm an artist myself on DA and I've had my art stolen a couple of times...thankfully, not for selling purposes. but its still very painful, and alot of people dont seem to care enough to give you a fair break and not charge an obscene amount of money to defend it. I'm surprised no one will take the case, then again...lawyers are scum. I really wish more people were aware of art theft and more pissed about it.

@superlayne: I don't see that anywhere in deviantART's terms of service. I do however see, as I quoted above. " In no event may minors submit Content to the Service". But that does raise an interesting question. Where the heck were her parents when fourteen year old Lara was creating this evocative picture and why did they consent to her posting it? ( Rhetorical question.) I think Lara had way too much unsupervised time on her hands.

My wife

was upset one day asking why I don't post photos of the kids on the internet like I post all the other photos. I said, Perverts.

@Black Bellamy:

She should be asking for compensation for use of her work, not a portion of the proceeds. (And anything else she can get out of them, too.)

In any case, I do think it's important to nip this kind of thing in the bud. It's getting all too common, and the only way to really stop it is to go after every single person who is doing it, and make them pay. A lot of us benefit from creators licensing their work free for non-commercial purposes. If we capitulate to those who abuse the availability and violate those licensing terms, none of us will have those options anymore. (I still believe that spam could have been curtailed back in the day if so many people hadn't thrown up their hands and given up.)

On the other hand, the obviously illiterate pornographer coined a perfectly good new word: "compsensation"! Short for "sensational compensation"? I'm liking it!

@wonderskunk: If you go to Lara's page at deviant art you will see that she is a very talented artist, beyond her years and creating very mature, thoughtful (and non-slutty) images.

Your "where are the parents" argument has no relevance. I would bet that they are supportive of her creativity, she's creating work beyond many adult professionals.

File this under "Being a teenage internet attention whore isn't always consequence-free."