Arquettes suing over christening photos
Thanks to CBB Reader Marrit.
From: www.imdb.com
David Arquette and Courteney Cox Arquette have threatened legal action against anyone who publishes photographs of their baby, after the snap was leaked to media organizations. Ten-month-old Coco was snapped at her Alabama, Georgia, christening earlier this month, where Jennifer Aniston was named godmother, and the couple seethed as they discovered the pictures were being distributed without their permission. Several media organizations, including the New York Daily News and Sky News, have reported they received emails from an originator claiming to be Aniston, with the photo as an attachment.
Aniston’s representative says, "They are not from Jennifer, and we believe they have been stolen from someone who attended the christening. The person who is sending them out pretending to be Jennifer is an imposter."
A statement from the fuming Arquettes says, "Although we are public figures, we do have a right to privacy. The photos from our daughter’s christening are being distributed without our consent. Anyone publishing these photos will be in copyright infringement and liable to legal action. We appreciate your sensitivity to this matter."
I wonder who could have stolen these photos and how. The photos were definitely taken by a guest at the christening. After all, the Arquettes and Jennifer definitely posed for these photos. The theft of the photos occurred after the photos were taken.
If the photographer took the photos with their camera phone, the phone could have been hacked, a la Paris Hilton. The media card could have been stolen from the camera, or perhaps swapped with another one, but that sounds so complicated. I have a sneaking suspicion someone (maybe Jen) did email them and is now denying they did.
If the photos were taken indoors, in a private place, at a private event, the Arquettes definitely have the right to expect privacy. However, this right to privacy does not exist once a person is in public. That’s why, in general, celebrities really can’t do anything legally about paparrazzi photographing them while they are out in public.
I am sort of confused about suing under copyright infringement. I suppose they have identified who took the photos originally and that person owns the rights to them. Any lawyers out there?
- Posted on Apr 20, 05 at 11:28AM
- Permalink
- 16 Comments
April 20th, 2005 at 11:30 am
They have the person’s name who did it. I’ll go find the article.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:30 am
THOSE deceiving devils on the Web have struck again. A day after someone posing as Jennifer Aniston sent around “personal” photos, another e-mail was sent around — with those same “personal photos” attached — purporting to know about an awkward moment during the April 9 christening of David and Courteney Cox Arquette’s daughter, Coco, in Birmingham, Ala. The e-mail, purportedly sent by Callie Michael, an employee at the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, said, “one of my friends’ aunt is really good friends of Courtney’s from high school and there was an episode one night!” According to the e-mail, “After a couple glasses of wine, Jen started to lose it. She was saying that she didn’t want to divorce Brad, but didn’t have a choice because he had slept with [Angelina] Jolie . . . Anyway, she kept having crying spouts, and Courtney finally turned to her and said, ‘I thought you promised you weren’t going to do this!’ ” A rep for Aniston, said: “This never ever happened.” Michael did not return calls.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:33 am
The photos were not very good quality (very dark) so they definately weren’t professional photos that leaked out – I’d agree with the cameraphone theory, or just a relative’s snaps.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Awww how awful. I really do feel sorry for Courtney and David. I understand they are celebs and although I love loooking at pics of Coco and other celeb babies but I do think they have a right to privacy sometimes. Especaillay at such a event as a christening when they want it private!!
April 20th, 2005 at 11:59 am
They could have done a confidentiality contract or something too for everyone that went, and this breached it or something. I don’t really understand the copyright infringement either. Maybe they just purchased the rights?
April 20th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.
If you take a picture (create an image,etc) you are the copyright owner of that picture. That is why places like Kinko’s try to enforce written permission of the photographer when scanning or coping photos. That’s why many places will not let you scan wedding photos or portrait sessions, even if you have a hard copy.
If a guest took these photos, they own it. And if the Arquettes are fairly certainly they were stolen by someone, they have grounds for copyright infringement on that person’s behalf.
Public figures do give up their privacy but this was a clear case of private event – in a religous building none the less. It’s not a movie premiere.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Are they definitely digital photos? If they were 35mm photos, whoever processed the film could’ve easily seen it as a money-making opportunity.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
How awful. I don’t care who you are, you have a right to keep you child safe. There are so many sickos out there, this is a danger to their daughter. It’s also disrespectful to them to be selling a family photo to the press. We all enjoy looking a photos of celebs, but I think there is a certain limit that people should be able to go to, and not beyond. I hope they win their suit and maybe it will make others reconsider when “selling them out”.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
I had the same thought that Brandi did–someone at the film processing center could have stolen the photos. Or if the photos are digital, if the photographer uploaded them to one of the photo printing services, someone there could have stolen them. The thief may not have even meant to make money from stealing the photos, it could have been just an email they sent to their friends to say “Look whose pictures I developed today!” and then it escalated from there as emails are wont to do. Of course, I have no idea what happened, just throwing out some scenarios.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
AH perfect example of why you want to limit your photos in group
April 20th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Ohhh,please! Like no one has seen pictures of their baby before. I know the Arquettes want privacy when it come to their family – and I respect that. On the positive side, this is a great chance for non-celebrities to see that even though these people are famous, they still do normal things just like you and me.
Also if the Arquettes keep getting upset about things like this then they are going to be getting upset about alotof things. Because lack of privacy is apart of fame. I’M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS RIGHT. But that’s just how it is.
April 20th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Here is where the thread started…
is Rich’s cousin. Isn’t the baby
From: epper001@bellsouth.net
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Picture from Microsoft Picture It!]
Check out these pictures! The lady that you don’t know is Rich’s aunt and
the girl w/ Jennifer (my best friend)
so cute? Have a great day!
Amy
April 20th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Just because your a celebrity does not mean your whole life should be the public’s viewing! There does need to be a limit when it comes to celebs and photographers! I mean, look at what happened with Princess Diana!
I think they do have the right to be mad. It was their daughter’s PRIVATE christening. A family event that they wanted to keep secrete for little coco. It’s sad that memory of the christening will be “spoiled” because of the photo leak!
April 20th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
So, are they mad that ANY pictures are out there of Coco, or just the ones from the christening? I understand the christening being a private event for family and friends. But, their comment made it sound like they would sue anyone who published any picture of their child. Celebrity and private are two words that just don’t go together.
April 21st, 2005 at 1:21 am
Deb, it sound like they’re mad about the christening pictures.
April 25th, 2005 at 8:54 am
I actually received some photos from a friend who received them from a friend and so on. As soon as I saw them I could tell they were someone’s personal pictures. Jenn posing with one lady and David, Courtney, Coco and another lady posing together and then one of just the second lady with Coco. They were taken inside the church. I did not forward the pics as I felt it was a private moment. I do have to say, Courtney looked radient and Coco is just adorable.