Fool’s News

Ashley Alexandra Dupre‘s lawyer, Don D. Buchwald, has been lashing out at media outlets who are publishing (on paper or on the web) photographs of his client, Ashley Alexandra Dupre, also known in court documents as Kristen. The photos may be found everywhere on the internet; just do a Google search. The photos at issue include Ms. Dupre in suggestive or scantily-clad poses. Buchwald, her lawyer, argues that Dupre did not consent to the use of her photos in this manner, and the usage may be a violation of federal copyright laws. He said the photos have appeared on commercial Web sites without her consent.

It seems clear that even Mr. Buchwald realizes that his client’s case in this regard is weak. He asserts that she did not consent to the use of her photos “in this manner” and that the use may violate federal copyright law. That is not particularly strong language from a Kelley Drye partner. In fact, the protests seem so weak that one might conclude that they are being made for the sake of protesting, but Mr. Dupre is really hoping that the publicity will do something for her struggling music career. [Think Vanessa Williams post-nude pictures release.]

The notion that the protests are more “for the record” is supported by the fact that her consent is hardly required now. Her consent is not required for a few reasons: 1) she voluntarily placed these photos on her profile pages at various social networking web sites; 2) her friends and …colleagues… uploaded photos of her to their profile pages at various social networking web sites; and 3) most importantly, whether she likes it or not, she is now a public figure. She is newsworthy. When she knew Client 9 was the governor of the state of New York or not, he was. If she knew, then she knowingly took the risk of being found out. At the very least, she knew her clients were wealthy, high-profile public figures (she must have with names like Client 9 and rates as possibly high as $4300 for 4 hours). Otherwise, she engaged in prostitution in a state or states where she knew it was illegal. In the event of a bust, her name and identity could become public information even if the bust had not resulted from a high-profile client like Governor Spitzer.

While it is true that Ms. Dupre may not have intended her mySpace profile to ultimately link her to an expensive call girl ring, oops and oh well. Everything she did, she did voluntarily, we presume: she sought a music career, she placed her pictures and her bio (minus the call girl entry) on various social networking sites, and she engaged in prostitution. She did these things with the knowledge of the attendant risks: musical success or failure, photos being available to the public at large, a high income from prostitution, the possible arrest for prostitution.

While I probably think that Mr. Buchwald is correct: Dupre did not intend for her photos to be used in this matter, that horse has left the stable. She is now a public figure. She is now a news item.

The law attempts to strike a balance between an individual’s right of publicity and free speech rights to permit specific uses of an individual’s identity. The First Amendment provides a hierarchy of protection under the so-called “newsworthy” exception depending upon how the individual’s identity is being used. The greatest protection is provided for news, lesser protection is provided for entertainment and fiction and the least protection is available for portrayal of an actual person’s identity is used to sell stuff.

The newsworthiness exception includes information about the real world and is generally construed to encompass the following: (1) current news items, news that has occurred in the past and information that is not strictly news, but is still informative; (2) media presentation on “public issues”; (3) factual, educational and historical material; and (4) entertainment and amusement concerning interesting aspects of an individual’s identity. There are two critical questions that must be answered before using an individual’s identity under the newsworthiness exception. First, is the unauthorized use of an individual’s identity really news that is subject to First Amendment protection? Second, is there a reasonable connection between the use of the individual’s identity and the news that is being conveyed? It seems clear in this case that the answer to both questions is “yes”.

While Ms. Dupre and Mr. Buchwald are complaining about the use of her photos, I suspect that neither objects too much. Ms. Dupre may get her music career and Mr. Buchwald or someone else at his firm may represent her when it does.

UPDATE: My suspicions are confirmed by the second-to-last paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for Ms. Dupre:

An unsigned singer, her single “Move Ya Body” set a record for how fast it commanded the top price on the music-download site AmieStreet.com reaching the site’s maximum of $0.98 per download in a matter of 5 hours following Dupré’s identity as the call girl “Kristen” being revealed by The New York Times on March 12, 2008. Another single, “What We Want”, has been played more than 3 million times on the Internet since the scandal erupted. She has reportedly earned as much of $1.4 million from download sales of her singles on Amie Street in the two days after her name became public.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/14/millionaire-call-girl-sp_n_91659.html.

When I first started this blog – now nearly 6 years ago – I began with SixApart‘s MovableType platform. It, at the time, had the easiest user interface. Its drawback was that every time you updated anything you were forced to “rebuild” the entire blog. It was time-consuming especially once you had posted a lot of entries. On the flip side, the interface was easy to use. It liked the name. And, best yet, it was free software that you could install on your own site (in other words, you didn’t have to use the provided space with limited possilibities – like Blogger (at that time)).

I was happy with MovableType, for a while. Then, everyone had to pay. Even me for a single (at time, two) user for a non-commercial site. That irritated me, but I was used to the platform and the interface so I paid.

Then, some glitch with my host provider screwed up my entire blog. It was missing from the server. All files gone. All posts gone. It was not retrievable. My host blamed MT. MT blamed my host. Four years of posts lost – after having paid for the platform.

At that point, I switched hosts and switched blogging platforms. I switched to WordPress. Though it took some getting used to, I generally liked – and still like – WordPress. It’s a relatively easy interface to use and plug-ins are [usually] a cinch to install. What I don’t like is the piecemeal method to upload new releases of WordPress. It can be a tedious process and new releases are launched rather frequently, in my opinion.

Out of nothing more than sheer curiosity, I thought I would check out the MovableType platform to see what they done with it in the past couple years. Of course, they now offer a free version (again) for non-commercial use. Grrr…

As much as I’d like to try it out, I just don’t trust SixApart at this point. They went from free to not-free to free [and open source]…

WordPress has been consistently free. The interface is easy to use. When all is said and done, as nice as the interface looks, I cannot bring myself to try MT again. They took a gamble that the blogging software game would head toward paid software. They tried to be the first on that boat. They were wrong. Too little, too late. At this point, I can’t go back.

What do you think?  Is this banning one group or accommodating another?

Thoughts?

Have a listen to this audio recording/video:

The speech is given by Republican Oklahoma state represenative Sally Kern.

At the end of the video, Rep. Kern asks, “As an American, what is wrong with me exercising my rights to free speech?”  Well, the short answer is that you voluntarily ran for public office.  Now you are no longer simply an American.  You are an American who represents other Americans – in fact all Americans in Oklahoma. 

You are entitled to your opinions and your free speech.  However, as a public figure knowing the current public sentiment, do not expect anyone to feel sorry for you when your words come back to haunt you.  Free speech, you have it.  Just remember, your critics and everyone you have angered have free speech rights, too.  More importantly, most of them have the right to vote.  Let’s hope they use them. 

If you’d like to express your outrage directly to Rep. Kern, you can e-mail her at sallykern@okhouse.gov.  Or, better yet, call her and express your disappointment in her at (405) 557-7348.  C’mon, I’ve given you all the information.  Do it.

There are actually “ham police”?  That’s right, in Italy there’s a task force to ensure that fake ham does not make its way to the public.  In fact, Italian police have confiscated about 1,000 hams because the meat was branded with fake Parma prosciutto trademarks.

Prosciutto inspectors realized the trademark five-point crown on the hams wasn’t the real thing, and the prosciuttos were ordered not to be sold.

To earn the trademark, which is branded on the rind, Parma prosciuttos must come from pigs of a certain weight, to assure the right amount of fat, and be aged in rooms where air quality and even sunlight are carefully controlled, said Fabrizio Raimondi, of the Parma-based consortium that safeguards use of the trademark.

Who knew?  Now you do.

According to golf.com, pro golfer Tripp Isenhour (née John Henry Isenhour III) killed a hawk that was making noise while he was trying to film a television show, “Shoot Like a Pro” (one wonders whether this was porn on a golf course…) at the Grand Cypress Golf Club.

The Humane Society wants the PGA to take action against Isenhour. According to a statement from Isehour, “I want to let everyone know there was neither any malice nor deliberate intent whatsoever to hit or harm the hawk. I was trying to simply scare it into flying away.”

By contrast, according to witnesses including production crew members for the show:

He drove closer to the bird in his golf cart and starting hitting balls at it. The bird didn’t move and Isenhour gave up and drove away.

Isenhour started again when the hawk moved within about 75 yards, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer Brian Baine indicated in a report.

Isenhour allegedly said, “I’ll get him now,” and aimed for the hawk.

“About the sixth ball came very near the bird’s head, and (Isenhour) was very excited that it was so close,” Baine wrote.

A few shots later, witnesses said he hit the hawk. The bird, protected as a migratory species, fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils.

You killed an animal because you take to do another take for your useless golf special. In my opinion, golf is one of the most useless activities invented by man. It’s not really a sport. It’s a recreational activity…sort of. I suppose it could be considered a game of skill like darts, but it is not a sport. Good God, as a “professional,” you don’t even carry your own clubs around the course; your caddy does that. Worse, you don’t even walk around the course; you drive. Talk about an activity engaged in by prima donnas.

And somehow you think you’re better than the hawk. Shame on you, Mr. Isenhour.

Here’s a red-shouldered hawk: