Dowbrigade

Most of you are probably already aware of the current legal battle
involving actress Cameron Diaz and a video she made in her wild and misspent
youth,
featuring, according to the New York Post, "The
video features Diaz topless and in fishnets. She and a leather-clad model
named
Natasha
are
vamping
it
up
in a bondage
scene
with a chained
man wearing nothing but a loose-fitting loincloth. At one point, the
twosome toy with their male "slave," making him wear a black
leather bondage mask and pretending to subjugate him."

Obviously, widespread dissemenation of this video could hurt her reputation
and damage her career, which really took off after "Charlie’s Angels".
Of course, it could help her in some quarters as well, but on the whole
it probably will reduce her future earnings, and so her lawyer has convinced
a judge to issue an injunction prohibiting "disseminating, distributing,
publishing, broadcasting or otherwise displaying the photos and/or video." by
not only the internet seller, but "anyone having knowledge or notice
of this order." A good summary of the case can be seen at the site techdirt.

Wired
Magazine also has an extensive
article on the controversy in which they quote
Mark Sableman, who in his 2001 article(PDF) in the Berkeley Technology Law
Journal, agreed. "Despite the Internet’s initial ‘free linking’
ethos, links can be unlawful when they are designed to confuse viewers,
to evade court orders or clear statutory
prohibition, or to promote illegal conduct by others," the St. Louis attorney
wrote. "But most linking is lawful, even where the linked site claims the
right to authorize and control links."

The key questions are, can a judge prohibit other web sites from linking
to the site which is offering the video for sale?  Can other sites
report on the dispute as legitimate news and if so can they feature stills
from the video to accompany the news report?

What do you think?

article from e-online