By: Ariel Ronneburger
Introduction
Cecilia Barnes’ online profile included her name, workplace contact information, and nude photographs. The pictures, posted on a web page hosted by Yahoo! Inc., received so much attention that they motivated a number of men who did not know Ms. Barnes to find her at work. Given her Internet exposure, Ms. Barnes probably should not have been surprised by these visits. However, Ms. Barnes never posted these photos herself—her ex-boyfriend did. After Ms. Barnes informed Yahoo! that she had not consented to the online profile containing her nude photographs, the company still failed to remove the profile from its website. The Oregon District Court determined that Yahoo! was not liable for any harm caused by the dissemination of Ms. Barnes’ photographs and personal information. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later determined that Ms. Barnes had a cause of action against Yahoo!, this decision was based solely on the fact that the company had promised Ms. Barnes that it would remove the pictures from its site. The Ninth Circuit opinion is unfortunately under-protective because, based on its reasoning, services like Yahoo! can avoid liability simply by refraining from making any promises to assist victims like Ms. Barnes.
Stories like Ms. Barnes’ are not uncommon. Moreover, the rise of so-called “Porn 2.0†will likely increase the online distribution of nude photographs featuring people who did not consent to the images’ circulation. Derived from the term “Web 2.0,†which is used to define Internet-based interactive communities, the term Porn 2.0 describes websites that allow users to post pornography that they themselves have created. With Porn 2.0, it is increasingly easy for Internet users to post pornographic images or videos of people who did not consent to the materials’ circulation….