[Magazine] sues over [Smith] photo leak[Magazine] is taking legal action to stop websites publishing a leaked picture of [Mrs. Smith] and [Mr. Smith] with their newborn daughter [baby].
The photo “has been obtained totally illegally,” said the magazine’s features editor, [woman].
[Mrs. Smith] and [Mr. Smith] sold the photos through picture [Agency], with all proceeds going to charity.
Both [Magazine] and [Agency] say they will seek damages from any internet sites which reproduce the picture.
NOTE: The names in the above excerpt have been obfuscated to prevent my post from being googled by a nasty lawyer. 
You have to have heard about this by now. The whole BBC story is linked here. About every other website I can find has taken this picture down… so I guess it’s up to me.
If my website is down tomorrow… you know why.
Web designer and developer. Loud discerner. Software engineer and 
Yeah, I’d...
wow, even with all the gossip blogs i read, this is the first i’ve heard of it! good work! and… is that a wedding ring on his finger?!?!
Regarding lawyers: Seeing as I’ve been on both sides of the “law” on this one, I recommend that you maybe either (1) host the picture somewhere else and link it here, or (2) at least call it something other than “leakedpicture”, which may be — for the short run, at least until the next leaking of celeb photos, or about a week — a tempting term to search for, and given the topical nature of Google’s search algorithim (if something’s hot in the news it’ll get pushed up for a short while), it’s not all that unthinkable that this’ll get picked up within a day, depending on how often Google spiders yuour site. (The first option is much more secure for you than the second.) The reason for the concern is, of course, Google Images. Hosting the image somewhere else will generally stop that image from showing up linked to this site in a Google Image Search.
Yes, I know, what are the chances, right? (Slim to none, I know.) Then again, I am a paranoid little monkey when it comes to this sort of thing. Part of my job description at one point was to hunt down stuff like this. With a PR of 5, exposure through pinging (if you’re into that sort of thing), and a fairly high Alexa ranking, you’re not exactly under the radar. That said, the article is obfuscated enough to divert more than a few lookers, but all it takes is the wrong one.
Now that’s gutsy journalism…
Who are Mr. and Mrs. Smith?
Heather :: I think the wedding ring would be on the other finger.
But, as you know from your rumor blogs, there are stories brewing of upcoming nuptials.
gnorb :: Actually, those are all really good points. I posted last night and should’ve thought to upload the pic somewhere else and hotlink it.
With a PR of 5, exposure through pinging (if you’re into that sort of thing), and a fairly high Alexa ranking, you’re not exactly under the radar.
Good point. I sometimes still have the illusion of invisibility.
Mike :: You make me smile.
mark :: Hey, nice to see you droppin’ by! And, yes, wasn’t that a great movie!
I like this picture a lot. It reminds me of a Time or Life magazine picture of maybe one of JFKs kid (or even maybe Lucille Balls and Dezi Arnez’s kids) from the 60s. I think someone took great effort to make it look that way. Definitely classy, definitely a deliberate leak.
Either way, looks like American royalty. I especially like the Mr. and Mrs. Smith reference that makes it seem rather anonymous but hysterical at the same time.
One Trackback
[...] like to share supposedly forbidden tidbits. Here was a previous one. This is a new one. 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0. That may not look like much, [...]