After her DUI charge was dropped, Julie Cantu thought her nightmare was over. Then, she went on a date.
Over dinner, Cantu’s would-be-suitor was asking questions anyone asks on a first date. Then he asked about her criminal record. Caught off-guard by the question, she thought about the dropped charge. Her blood alcohol had been 0.021, well below the legal limit of 0.08, and she had no other contact with the law. How did her date know?
After getting home, the Florida resident and retired nurse went online and searched her name. Her mugshot, eyes puffy and red from crying, was displayed prominently between results for her LinkedIn and Facebook profiles.
Making matters worse, she did not find her photo on a newspaper or crime blotter website that reports local crime. Cantu found herself in the mugshot racket. Her photo was on Arrestmugshot.com, Mugshots.com and Tampacriminal.com—all of which demanded a fee to take down these photos (two of these sites, arrestmugshot.com and tampacriminal.com, are no longer active, with the latter now redirecting to a lawyer’s website).
After paying $175 to one site to take down the photo, she found her mugshot pop up on another, which asked for even more money. An exploitative game of online whack-a-mole had begun.
Cantu says she worried that the photo was “going to be there the rest of my life.”
Related links:
Lawsuits Seek to Bring Down Mugshot Profiteering [courthousenews.com 8/11/17]
You would think this would at least qualify us to have a change of identity after completion of sentence or expungement, but I think most state’s and judges don’t allow you to change identity just to hide a criminal past even if it wrecks your life and doesn’t serve the public.
Here is the million dollar question? How do they get the photos?
I tried this in the State of Maine, even threatening to sue Knox County for the copyright. I used a Freedom of Access Act request to find the name of the individual who took my photograph and contacted him. The city’s attorney responded stating that they refuse to sign over the copyright for my mugshot even though my case is over a decade old.
A hate group in Massachusetts used my photo and even purchased my background check in order to harass me for years by encouraging the public to “fight back” against me and listing my address, drivers license number, and other personal information. I got a Protection from Harassment (Restraining Order) against the organization and they stopped publishing, but there’s still a lot of copycat articles online. I temporarily got their site shut down after filing an abuse complaint with their webhost, but they switched to an Australian webhost afterward.
I’ve had some luck using DMCA notices even though I don’t own the photo. If you present yourself as the copyright owner, webhosts, authors, etc. usually won’t challenge it because of how severe the consequences of copyright violations are. Most webhosts also have their own policies against abuse and various Terms of Service. If you’re being targeted by someone using your mugshot or other personal information, use a tool like whoishostingthis.com to find the host and review their Terms of Service / Terms of Use and file an abuse complaint with them. You don’t necessarily need to state copyright as the ground for removal – some registry websites forbid anyone from using the information on the site and some law enforcement agencies forbid the public from using their content for monetary gain. Often that is enough to get the content removed. More often than not, search engine results are the primary problem and you can get Google and Bing to de-index websites as well, although your results may vary.
Now that I’m a resident of California, I may try to use some of the protections here to go after any mugshot websites, especially given the fact that financial compensation is built into the law. I believe that the US will eventually follow in the path of Europe by introducing “Right to Be Forgotten” laws. Until then, it’s hit or miss, but I’m encouraged by some of the new laws regarding mugshots and other privacy protections. I think we will see more of this following the Facebook / Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The California attorney general’s office has just filed complaints against three people associated with Mugshots.com and are now looking to extradite for criminal prosecution. The news broke yesterday.
I received contact by the FBI this morning. If the Offendex/SORArchives situation and this have anything to do with eachother, but it’s interesting the timing of it all.
What about Homefacts.com? Can the same argument be used against them?
California Mugshot Extortion Fee Claims Survive Anti-SLAPP Dismissal
Loaded on JAN. 3, 2018 by Mark Wilson
Filed under: Booking Fees. Location: California.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jan/3/california-mugshot-extortion-fee-claims-survive-anti-slapp-dismissal/
All of Mugshots.com’s alleged co-owners arrested on extortion charges
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/all-of-mugshots-coms-alleged-co-owners-arrested-on-extortion-charges/
Didn’t really read article, but title got me thinkin’. If I copyright my face and name, could I sue if a private org. then used either?
It would help if Police Departments would post a copyright notice and perhaps a DMCA watermark logo on every photo. That would be easy to automate. I’m going to copy this article and send it to my local Sheriff. He might consider it.