Who owns an unsolicited dick pic?

[TeaGinandFags]

Possibly a bit niche, but I was the recipient of one of these and I was thinking that I might be able to use it. Or rather part of it.

One for the legal beagles methinks.

My idea is thus: in conjunction with some pals, I'm writing a story about this very experience and couldn't think of a better cover.

Obviously, the offending, if not unattractive, part will be cropped off^, so wouldn't count as revenge porn* but what about things like copyright? Or other complicated stuff? Would the sender have a claim? If there is a claim, he had forgotten to inform me about a missus he still had at the time, so could she benefit?

Your thoughts and suggestions are all welcome.

*Revenge IS part of the motivation for using it. Not just the convenience. Silly bastard didn't hide his face.
^If only life would imitate art (sigh).

Somebody already beat you to it op 😁

www.playfulmag.com/post/she-sells-unsolicited-dick-picks-in-berlin-clubs

An oil painting would be a derivative work, which is a breach of copyright. Whilst parody is allowed, a parody of a work that has not been made public is also likely to be a breach of copyright.

Since he took the pics in his then wife's back bedroom, perhaps she may have a vested interest ...

Would you good and kindly folk knows if the location has a legal interest?

Possibly but doubtful. She would have a right of privacy that would entitle her to object to publication of details of her private bedroom - but as I suspect is likely not much of the bedroom features it's doubtful if the image would amount to a breach of her rights.

See McKennitt v Ash in the Court of Appeal at paras 21 - 22 about even relatively trivial details of the Claimant's cottage would fall within the protection simply because of the traditional sanctity accorded to hearth and home

https://knyvet.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1714.html

I like her style, but a different jurisdiction. 😞

Can I thank everyone who has answered.

It has been educational and I thank you all for that.

TeaGinandFags x

Unless she can claim the news reporting exemption? 🤣🤣
only kidding OP, don’t try that

Unless she can claim the news reporting exemption? 🤣🤣
only kidding OP, don’t try that

@Delphigirl The reporting current events exemption does not apply to photographs at all.

s.30(2) of Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 specifically excludes photographs

Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

and this is exactly why listening to strangers on the internet on matters that require any specialist professional knowledge is a bad idea. We could all be talking nonsense.

thanks but I made clear that I was only joking @wigsngowns, not giving legal advice!

@Delphigirl but your joke was based on the premise that reporting current events is an exemption for all copyright works and available here which was wrong.

I’ve been an IP lawyer for 31 years wigsngowns - I was making a (crap) joke, as I explicitly stated, it doesn’t matter that the underlying legal premise was not accurate. It honestly, truly, does not.

it doesn’t matter that the underlying legal premise was not accurate. It honestly, truly, does not.

No real IP lawyer would make that joke and it really does make a difference as to whether the premise is accurate. You wouldn't even think of it as a joke if you knew the law - because it could never be applicable no matter how ludicruous so there is no joke to make.

Lawyers as a class are all about language and accuracy especially when it comes to jokes. 😂As you would know. Apparently.

Just don't go there OP.

Do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?

So now I’m not a lawyer at all? Nice. And entirely wrong.

As ludicrous as if I suggested that you weren’t a real lawyer because real lawyers are all about language and accuracy and would know how to spell ludicrous 🤣

So now I’m not a lawyer at all? Nice. And entirely wrong.

I have no idea whether you are a lawyer at all but I don't believe you are an IP (copyright) lawyer that's for sure. Not least because you were wrong (makes no sense to say 'don't try that' when in fact you should know it isn't a legal option at all so you can't try it unless you want a negligence claim), but an IP lawyer would naturally refer to "reporting current events" and not 'the news reporting" exemption. 'News reporting' is a very 'a little learning' way of refering to that exemption - or a person without knowledge of that aspect of civil law like criminal lawyer or an employment lawyer..

You are perfectly entitled to suggest I'm not a lawyer because I am not or I may not be or I could be anyone with access to Google. You are the only one claiming to be an IP lawyer and one of 31 years standing.

Your latest replies show you are just annoyed you've been caught out as not knowing the reporting current events exemption doesn't apply to photographs when you thought you were being so clever with your little joke.

You are a fantasist.