Steve wrote:

Shane said: "The defense rests. Prosecution opens: yes, it is possible under the current libel laws to sue someone for an altered image or explicit artwork,"

Not so clear as you suggest. The extrapolation from an altered photograph to a piece of artwork both being covered by libel laws does not necessarily work and to my knowledge has never been put to the test in court.

Perhaps not, but in the case of a piece of nude artwork which receives wide circulation without comment from the actor, it could well be assumed that the actor had given their consent for it to be done, or even posed for the picture (depending of course on the image's realism), especially since no disclaimers appear to mark the image as totally unauthorised and unsanctioned. Which would certainly fit the bill as to an image using the actor's (facial) likeness which caused the actor distress and may, if s/he didn't want to be seen as the sort of person who would pose for dirty pictures (or allow these to be distributed), be seen by him/her as career-damaging. Maybe it hasn't been put to test in court but these days I wouldn't want to be the first to try.

As an aside, on a minor point, you said: "Legal rights aren't at issue here. Rights of common decency are." I should point out it was you who said Sally had "every right to ask for it to be removed". I was pointing out in response to this that she didn't have legal rights.

But those aren't always the most important ones to consider.

Shane

"Does my bum look big in this?" --Jenna

Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015