Student sues school district for $2 million over Facebook bikini photo

This is why I don't use Facebook.

The tech director was totally in the wrong as far as I'm concerned. But do you know when you're a 'friend of a friend' or does everyone on Facebook assume that if it's on there, it's usable? But then why is he using a picture of a minor? That's definitely ick.

But... the girl has also learnt a valuable lesson. The internet is public property, no matter what anyone tells you.

I can definitely see how he was rude and creepy for doing it. But I don't know about suing him....the picture was public. Anyone with a lick of sense knows "friends of friends" is thousands of people, at least.

I also don't know why the fact that she was in a bikini and is a minor matters. It wasnt child porn and I think the suggestion that it's inherently sexual because it shows some skin is pretty dangerous.

They both sound kind of dumb. Guess that's my take.

Because there are thousands of pictures of women in a bikini on the internet. So why choose a picture of a girl he knew was a minor?

Also I love that the issue was him showing the photo to a crowd of people and now it's all over the Internet, presumeably with her permission. "I want everyone on the planet to see my bikini photo except when I don't." That's not how the Internet works, sweetheart.

I enjoy that the entire point of the seminar is apparently still over her head.

“I was embarrassed. I was horrified,” Chaney told a WSB-TV reporter. “It never crossed my mind that it would ever — that this would ever happen to me.”

Click to expand...

She's in a bikini, just standing there - how is that child porn?

I'm also not persuaded that's not a fair use case, as far as copyright would be concerned. So I'm generally on his side I suppose.

cornflake said:

I enjoy that the entire point of the seminar is apparently still over her head.



She's in a bikini, just standing there - how is that child porn?

I'm also not persuaded that's not a fair use case, as far as copyright would be concerned. So I'm generally on his side I suppose.

Click to expand...

This, especially the first sentence. I kinda chuckled st her statement, it's just so obtuse. If she had limited the visibility of the photo to only friends, I might be a bit more sympathetic, but at her age (17? 18?) she ought to have known better. Friends of friends = pretty much everyone on the interwebs, sweety.

I don't think the tech director should have used the photo, meaning I think he could have found a similar stock photo to make his point without embarrassing the young woman, but he certainly didn't do anything illegal from where I'm sitting, and think the young woman and her parents are wasting the courts time with this crap law suit. Hooray for litigious America!

missesdash said:

Also I love that the issue was him showing the photo to a crowd of people and now it's all over the Internet, presumeably with her permission. "I want everyone on the planet to see my bikini photo except when I don't." That's not how the Internet works, sweetheart.

Click to expand...

Yes, a crowd of people is nothing compared to who can see it online. And "friends of friends"? I think you have no idea how many friends your friends really have!

I do agree that it's a bit creepy and weird of him to use it without her permission. All photos, even snapshots like these, have copyrights, and she's not a public figure. But like cornflake, I think it's very possible that this could fall under fair use.

So I don't know what to think. It is quite an interesting case.

Posting a picture on facebook does not give anyone the right to copy and use it without that person's permission. And with a minor, a parent has to sign off on the permission. Hell, the tech director might have even violated facebook's TOS in doing so.

thothguard51 said:

Posting a picture on facebook does not give anyone the right to copy and use it without that person's permission.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It give facebook that right, for one.

Clearly the mere fact that the student posted the pics shows her lack of maturity and naïveté. This is reason enough for someone NOT to use the picture. The point is to learn anyone can find things on the net. The point isn't to publicly humiliate a naive teen. What kind of teacher thinks this is the correct course of action? I'm going to share a sexy photo of an underage girl at my school to teach her a lesson, yeah, that's real mature. The teacher should have spoken to her privately. Should have pointed out he could very well have used this picture for a presentation. He could have mentioned it in the presentation without publicly humiliating her. Further clearly the message was lost on her. All she is focused on is the embarrassment, not the issue. Teachers and students aren't equals. Teachers are meant to guide. The same lesson could have been learned without sharing an underaged picture.

That being said, she shouldn't be suing. But people sue over everything. And aside from the murky underage issue, the picture was public so he technically isn't in the wrong. But I still don't believe what he did was right.

Toothpaste said:

I'm going to share a sexy photo of an underage girl at my school to teach her a lesson, yeah, that's real mature. The teacher should have spoken to her privately.

Click to expand...

That's not what he was doing. She is a freshman in college now. She isn't even at the school for him to speak to privately.

missesdash said:

I can definitely see how he was rude and creepy for doing it. But I don't know about suing him....the picture was public. Anyone with a lick of sense knows "friends of friends" is thousands of people, at least.

I also don't know why the fact that she was in a bikini and is a minor matters. It wasnt child porn and I think the suggestion that it's inherently sexual because it shows some skin is pretty dangerous.

They both sound kind of dumb. Guess that's my take.

Click to expand...

I can't think how this would be child porn under the legal definitions I'm aware of. The school publishing a photo of any child dressed in any clothing without the permission of the parents, however, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

cornflake said:

I'm also not persuaded that's not a fair use case, as far as copyright would be concerned. So I'm generally on his side I suppose.

Click to expand...

Of course it's not fair use. The person who took that photo owns the copyright. The school did not obtain permission to use it from the rights holder.

thothguard51 said:

Posting a picture on facebook does not give anyone the right to copy and use it without that person's permission. And with a minor, a parent has to sign off on the permission. Hell, the tech director might have even violated facebook's TOS in doing so.

Click to expand...

Celia Cyanide said:

Yes, it does. It give facebook that right, for one.

Click to expand...

Facebook didn't publish the photo without permission. She gave permission when she agreed to the Terms of Service. Whether the person who took the photo gave permission for her to post it is something I'm assuming did happen.

The photo really isn't "sexy." It's a girl in a swimsuit standing next to a snoopdog cardboard cutout thingy. I'm actually slightly confused as to why it would be presented as something she'd hope no one ever saw.

ETA: posted before I finished but! I have this theory that it was being passed around in some way and that's why he used it. But he probably would have said so.

Celia Cyanide said:

That's not what he was doing. She is a freshman in college now. She isn't even at the school for him to speak to privately.

Click to expand...

Okay. Fine. I didn't read the article. He couldn't have spoken to her. He still used a picture by a former student who likely still knows people at the school to teach a lesson. I'm thinking you think she deserves it and should know better. But by her statements even after the fact it's clear she doesn't. I'm not saying she's some innocent naive girl all Bambi wide-eyed like. She clearly has entitlement issues from the sound of it. But I don't really care if maybe people think she deserved it, I don't care if the teacher was technically allowed to do it, I still think it's wrong. To teach this lesson he could have found an innocuous picture of a pet of one if his current students, asked permission of the student to use it as an example of how anyone can find anything on the net.

I still think it is wrong for a teacher to publicly humiliate a student in this way.


ETA: read the article. Evidently parents saw it too. So not just her underaged peers but adults.

The school is definitely in the wrong, and I think that these lawsuits can serve a useful purpose - it puts other districts on notice not to do this without permission.

But the bigger issue to me is, when did society get so fucked up that it's now scandalous to share pictures of yourself in a bikini? One, there's nothing wrong with it, regardless of age, and two, it's a horrible example if the point was to illustrate something not to do on social media.

I've read around a bit and apparently the point was that the pictures you post can be easily shared and taken out of context. So this picture is innocent, but maybe people would assume she was a party girl or....something else stupid and slut-shamey

It was damn stupid and rude, in my personal and professional opinion, even if it was done for a worthy goal, which it may or may not have been. The admin may have been trying to drive home the point by using an individual less abstract than a celebrity, for example. Or may have been trying to embarrass the girl or someone from her family. We don't know.

Was it "illegal"? Probably not. Might turn out to be against the state or local school code, though. Depends on state code, and the acceptable usage policy and filtering policies of the school. The policies may only refer to current students or current minors.

It MIGHT also be contrary to Facebook's TOS. I haven't read the latest version. But their TOS is such that it may violate one part and be "blessed" in another. Plus, since she advertised an alcohol brand in her photo, it may be able to be even further twisted.

It also would seem to be legal under the Fair Use rules. More info from smarter people here:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2007/03/fairy-use-tale

Meanwhile, her "embarrassing" photo has now gone from a limited audience, education assembly to a national story, not by the school's actions, but her own.

It would, equally, appear that her inability to think through the consequence of her actions hasn't gotten better as she reached her majority.

I don't see at all how this is child porn. It wasn't intended to titillate, and she was dressed. Yes, in scantily clad clothes, but still dressed. I seem to remember Britney Spears at 16 scantily clad on TV all the time and that was never considered pornography (and she made herself famous by being a sex symbol). I also seem to remember Miley Cyrus running around in very skimpy clothing and bikini pictures of her being leaked when she was under age, and again this was never considered pornography.

On the one hand, I think the teacher shouldn't have used the photo without permission. On the other, I have zero sympathy for the girl. "Friends of friends" is not a private setting. You have no control at that point over who is seeing it. Even with a "friends" setting, you don't have control over who does what with the picture. There's nothing to stop a friend from copying the picture and sending it to all his buddies.

The entire point of this was to show that social media is not as private as teens think and that they need to think twice about what they make available. How would she have felt if she found out this photo was being sent to all the boys in her school? It would have been just as easy to do.

Honestly, it was a stupid thing for her to post in the first place, and hopefully she's learned that. I certainly don't think the school should have to pay $2 million for that lesson, though.

Ahhh thanks willibean. I kept trying to figure out exactly how it could be damaging and didn't notice the alcohol advertising. The choice of photo makes much more sense now.

I don't think it was child porn either, it was just icky.

But I agree with Kaitie. The school shouldn't be paying $2 mill for teaching someone a lesson in life. Isn't that one of the things a school is supposed to do?

FFS, I just read the article and I should have done it sooner. She was 17 in that photo. What's the age of consent in Georgia? Because here she's a year over the age of consent.

Or is she just under age for alcohol?

Williebee said:

It also would seem to be legal under the Fair Use rules. More info from smarter people here:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2007/03/fairy-use-tale

Click to expand...

You're probably right. Cornflake, I apologize.

mirandashell said:

FFS, I just read the article and I should have done it sooner. She was 17 in that photo. What's the age of consent in Georgia? Because here she's a year over the age of consent.

Or is she just under age for alcohol?

Click to expand...

The "minor" aspect is interesting, too. She's apparently not a minor anymore. But it is still a "picture of a minor." How does that play out? In a case of "non-porn" what is the legality?