-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Google Maps/Citysearch Review & Public Facebook Photos
- Thread Starter BooG690
- Start date
- Status
Proserpina
Moderator
Q. Can they do anything to me? Yes.
Q. Should I be worried? Yes.
If I were you I would be having at least an initial consult with an attorney. When you call, mention invasion of privacy and the possibility of damages.
It's one thing obtaining the photographs. It's another thing entirely forwarding those photographs to other entities...
Q. Should I be worried? Yes.
If I were you I would be having at least an initial consult with an attorney. When you call, mention invasion of privacy and the possibility of damages.
It's one thing obtaining the photographs. It's another thing entirely forwarding those photographs to other entities...
You are possibly facing a lawsuit for defamation of character and/or libel. (Slander is spoken, libel is written.) Two parts to this - first sending the photos pretty much speaks for itself as to why this is a problem. And it's very possible that is all you will deal with legally, as they may not know that the false reviews were from you. Which leads to the second part, the false reviews. If they can prove it was you, they can include that in the case. The problem is you say this stuff was true because you heard it from customers. But that means YOU were not the one who dealt with these issues first hand.
In any event, I wouldn't bring that up unless they bring it up to you. But the photos are going to be a huge issue for you.
In any event, I wouldn't bring that up unless they bring it up to you. But the photos are going to be a huge issue for you.
Proserpina
Moderator
Agreed.
There's also the matter of copyright - if OP had taken the pictures him/herself and then distributed them without the subject's permission at least OP could possibly raise ownership as a defense.
(Of course this doesn't mean that it would work...)
This is one of the few occasions where there's a real chance of a defamation suit being filed; if nothing else the employer will know fine well that OP could be absolutely buried just by having to defend against such a suit.
There's also the matter of copyright - if OP had taken the pictures him/herself and then distributed them without the subject's permission at least OP could possibly raise ownership as a defense.
(Of course this doesn't mean that it would work...)
This is one of the few occasions where there's a real chance of a defamation suit being filed; if nothing else the employer will know fine well that OP could be absolutely buried just by having to defend against such a suit.
Thank you for all your help.
One thing I do not understand: doesn't libel assume an untrue statement? How is a picture untrue?
I found the following on this website:
Defenses to a defamation claim
Truth. The truth is an absolute defense against a defamation action. If there was no lie or untruth, even if the statement was damaging, no defamation action has arisen. For example, if A told B that C failed her math exam, if C did fail her math exam there is no defamation claim even though A's statement is damaging to C.
Can someone explain further please?
One thing I do not understand: doesn't libel assume an untrue statement? How is a picture untrue?
I found the following on this website:
Defenses to a defamation claim
Truth. The truth is an absolute defense against a defamation action. If there was no lie or untruth, even if the statement was damaging, no defamation action has arisen. For example, if A told B that C failed her math exam, if C did fail her math exam there is no defamation claim even though A's statement is damaging to C.
Can someone explain further please?
Proserpina
Moderator
While the truth is a defense, it does NOT automatically render a suit moot (oh that's horrible grammar...but at least it rhymes).
You clearly did not have permission to distribute the photographs - THIS is going to be a HUGE issue for you, especially as it will be very clear that malice was present. Frankly I think this is a much greater concern.
You have, deliberately and with malice, attempted to sully and damage the reputation of your ex-boss. The fact that the pictures were on a social networking site does not change the bottom line. Your ex-boss can absolutely file suit against you and claim - depending on provable losses - substantial damages.
You clearly did not have permission to distribute the photographs - THIS is going to be a HUGE issue for you, especially as it will be very clear that malice was present. Frankly I think this is a much greater concern.
You have, deliberately and with malice, attempted to sully and damage the reputation of your ex-boss. The fact that the pictures were on a social networking site does not change the bottom line. Your ex-boss can absolutely file suit against you and claim - depending on provable losses - substantial damages.
army judge
Super Moderator
Never anticipate or attempt to predict what MIGHT happen.
Prepare to deal ONLY with what happens.
When you're in a HOLE, stop digging yourself in DEEPER!
You have the right to remain silent, consider using it.
Prepare to deal ONLY with what happens.
When you're in a HOLE, stop digging yourself in DEEPER!
You have the right to remain silent, consider using it.
From what I have read and to summarize some comments whose intentions might not be as clear as anticipated:
(1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel or slander. Once used, end of lawsuit for either cause of action (law which you claim was violated.)
(2) Even if one cause of action is dismissed, it doesn't mean that there aren't other causes of action which the plaintiff can sue you, e.g. copyright infringement, intent to cause emotional distress, etc.
Thus, if an allegation includes the unauthorized use of a photo to cause harm, the plaintiff may not sue for libel or slander if the photo is legitimate but may have a whole slew of causes of action to use for suit.
(1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel or slander. Once used, end of lawsuit for either cause of action (law which you claim was violated.)
(2) Even if one cause of action is dismissed, it doesn't mean that there aren't other causes of action which the plaintiff can sue you, e.g. copyright infringement, intent to cause emotional distress, etc.
Thus, if an allegation includes the unauthorized use of a photo to cause harm, the plaintiff may not sue for libel or slander if the photo is legitimate but may have a whole slew of causes of action to use for suit.
- Status
Share this page
