Super Injunctions

Okay, so I got this dilemma boggling me.

Suppose there's an injunction against the publishing of personal details of an individual. What's the deal if they personally uploaded their own photos and they are subsequently recognised? Free for all?

Just because something is on the internet does not mean its free as material on the internet is subject to copy right just as anything else. It is harder to police material one uploads but it is still subject to copy right and if the pictures are copyrighted then you are not allowed to use them for a commercial purpose other than fair use or for educational purposes.

Copyright isn't of concern here and even if it was it would be civil.

Assume that the person uploads their photo to a public social networking site, meaning that it would normally be perfectly fine to be linked elsewhere.
 

a reply to: [post=19053180]VigiliaProcuratio[/pos

A photo can still be copyrighted and shared but not used in a commercial application...I am no expert and if I were intending to use something which didn't belong to me I would first attempt to gain permission first from the owner even if no cop;y right was attached. And depending on the terms of service of some sites they may gain ownership in some uses and circumstances.

If the pictures or nay material is uploaded illegally then a person or entity can apply DMCA and require it to be removed and usually without any investigations as to ownership so I would be careful and as least consult an attorney.

And any copyright is a civil matter, violate a copy right you can be taken to court. As for using a picture which someone posted it most likely would be fair game but if you already have an injunction against use I would say leave it alone or simply attempt to gain permission to use it.

Well, there's a specific injunction in effect which should never have existed. I wonder if any rules might apply here regarding this?

Remember the Ryan Giggs stuff and how technically it was an open secret that everyone knew but no one could officially identify him and he was a player in one of the PL's top teams, even a MP using the rights of the office in parliament who named him didn't make the injunction any less binding on the press at the time except they could report on what the MP had said which caused some serious legal headaches i seem to remember.

And unless the court order is rescinded i'd imagine anyone even the defendant themselves would possibly find themselves up before the beak for breaking it.