General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAltered Down syndrome student's picture prompts $18M lawsuit
NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) -
A smiling moment for a Middle Tennessee family has turned into a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
The picture of a man with Down syndrome taken in 2004 was repeatedly altered and posted online, prompting the lawsuit.
In the picture, Adam Holland is smiling big for the camera. The picture shows Holland and a picture he drew during for an art class at the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center.
The class was for those with developmental disabilities.
"He's a very likable, very presentable young man who I don't think fully appreciates the hurt that's been inflicted on him," said Holland's attorney Larry Crain.
Holland was 19 when he proudly held up his work of art. The picture was posted to the web but nearly a decade later it has become something else.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/22104625/altered-down-syndrome-students-picture-prompts-18m-lawsuit
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The story doesn't say.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Crain said the Hollands found one of those images on a Florida radio station web site.
Another was on a Flickr web site was posted by a realtor in the Minneapolis area.
The director of communication at the Cox Media radio station named in the lawsuit said the company is looking into the matter. They said it's their policy not to comment on ongoing litigation.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)On one hand, I can see how having your image pulled into an Internet meme could be hurtful and humiliating, and you can bet that I'd be calling my lawyers if my own image were ever used that way. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of suing someone just because they shared a funny meme image they found on Facebook.
Should someone be able to sue another for editing and sharing their photo in a hurtful or embarassing way? What if this guy decided to sue me or DU because I posted this image:
trumad
(41,692 posts)Totally different scenario.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I'm quite certain that mocking text along the bottom wasn't there in the original. Even if the guy wasn't humiliated by the original photo, I'm sure that one of the hundreds of variations that mocked him or made him the butt of jokes would have done so.
So...should it be cause for legal action?
His picture wasn't edited.... if the actual picture is edited then perhaps...his wasn't.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He could sue us all blind but then again he have to admit to being the plaintiff.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This one however: http://gawker.com/5905373/girl-with-downs-is-unwitting-subject-of-mean-internet-meme
And the Gawker article is only 3 days old.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Crain said some of the other images they found were so derogatory he couldn't even include them in the lawsuit."
I don't see why they wouldn't be added. Maybe they could not be attached to an organization with deep pockets?