Cameron Diaz: when private parts go public

Cafe Society
1

For those who haven’t heard, Cameron Diaz is involved in a dispute with a photographer, John Rutter. Diaz posed for a series of topless photos taken by Rutter back before she started her film career.

Obviously, these photos are now worth some money. Rutter first contacted Diaz and offered to sell the photos and negatives back to her. Rutter said that if Diaz didn’t want to buy them, he would sell them to the highest media bidder. According to Rutter, Diaz was willing to buy them but negotiations broke down over the price. Diaz then contacted the police, who have raided Rutter’s studio and are investigating him for possible extortion charges.

Now, no one is claiming that Diaz was underage or unaware the photos were being taken. Rutter says he has the proper model release documents giving him the legal right to sell the photos to whomever he wishes. Diaz is now saying she never signed a release and the one Rutter has is a forgery.

To me, it looks like Diaz’s case is hopeless and she’s trying whatever she can to prevent these photos from appearing. What surprises me is that the LAPD is apparently supporting her in surpressing what appears to be a perfectly legal (if somewhat unsavory) business offer. Other than Diaz’s unlikely claim that her signature was forged, is there any basis to an extortion charge here? Personally, based on what I’ve heard, it would serve Diaz right if in addition to seeing the photos published she had to pay Rutter civil damages for the problems she’s caused him.

2

It’s not the police department’s responsibility to decide a case is without merit. A complaint was made, it’s their job to investigate it and give their findings to prosecutors.

“Raid” is a word loaded with value judgements.

3

And seeing as how they’ve been all over the web for years I’d say it’s a lost cause.

4

So wait, those topless photos of Cameron Diaz floating around are real?

::runs to Google::

5

Extortion my ass. He offered her the photos and the same price he was offered.

6

I can just picture the scene down at the police station. Those guys must be putting overtime in to examine the evidence, sometimes three or four times in a day.

7

It doesn’t sound like extortion to me, either, but to the police, it can sound like a fairly realistic complaint. Someone has nude photographs of her, called her up, and told her “If you don’t pay me “X” amount of money, I’m going to sell them to the tabloids.” Sounds like extortion when you put it like that. Of course, that’s leaving out the whole legal contract that she signed which make the photographs his property, with which he can do whatever he likes. I’m sure that’s the big reason they went to his place to confiscate the photos. Once it goes to trial, if it is proven that she did indeed sign said forms and that the pictures are his property by law, then I think a counter suit should be filed and she should have to pay him some sort of reparations.

Again, though, it’s going to have to go to trial, most likely. Unless they settle out of court. She’s being a bit too premadonna here, in my opinion.

8

So what would he have to do to make it extortion, legally?

9

But before the police can be issued a warrent (which they were) there has to be some evidence that a crime was committed. Being as the event occurred ten years ago, I’d say the burden was on Diaz to explain how a crime had been committed and evidence existed in Rutter’s studio.

There are authentic topless photos of Diaz that have been published. They were taken at a public beach while Diaz was sunbathing. However, to the best of my knowlege, Diaz has never appeared nude in any of her movies or posed for any other nude photos. So presumedly, Rutter’s pictures would have considerable commercial value.

10

I think the word you’re looking for is prima donna

11

Wow, I think the guy should be applauded for giving her first and exclusive rights to purchase the photos.

I mean, she has to acknowledge the fact that those pictures are worth a lot of money now. Does she expect him to throw away pure money because she feels like she made a mistake when she was younger?

12

Thanks, jack@ass, your correction of my spelling really helped improve my point and contributed greatly to this conversation.

Back on topic, SmackFu, IANAL, but I assume for it to be extortion, the pictures would have to have been taken either without her knowledge or under the impression that the pictures and negatives were her property. Also, I believe the whole “Give me X amount of money or I turn them over to the press” is another key aspect. Extortion, to my knowledge, is the use of some sort of incriminating product to get someone to pay you for it’s secrecy. Hmmmm…that doesn’t sound good.

Here, say you follow someone and take pictures of them having a nice lavish dinner with a young woman who is not their wife. You can then call that person, tell them “I have pictures of you with Ms. Y at the Happy Love Hotel No. 9. Unless you want your wife and business associates to find out, I suggest you send $5,000 to this address.” This would be extortion.

In the Diaz situation, they were seemingly pictures taken as part of a legal agreement with her knowledge of what they were: nude pictures. She signed an agreement giving the photographer ownership of them, and the right to sell them to whomever he chose. He called her up, said “If you would like these pictures, I’ll gladly sell them to you for X amount.” Apparently, she wanted them for less, and he quite possibly said “Well, I know I can get my asking price if I went to Mr. B, so unless you’re willing to meet my price, I’m going to sell him the photos.” To my knowledge, this is completely within his rights. It’s like asking someone if they want to buy your couch for $150, but when they try to go down to $100, you tell them “Well, I know someone else who will pay $120, so unless you’re willing to match or go higher, I’m just going to sell it to them.”

She’s making a big mess out of this, and is probably going to get burned in the end.

13

I suspect these are the pictures that have been on the web for some time. They show a young CD and are taken in a modelling studio with a blue curtain backdrop (not that I looked at them over and over again you understand!). Shots are sequential and not explicit - but are topless.

Like I say, assuming these are genuine (and I know a lot of people think they are) - and given that anyone interested will have seen the beach pics where she plays topless in the sea with her bf - there’s little point in pursuing this. /cynical smiley/ Of course, as she has a film out right now a little publicity, especially of the sexy variety wouldn’t go amiss…?!

(And now I sound like the biggest perve on the Board!)

14

Ive read at least 3 magazines (one of them loaded -british mens mag) from a few years ago with a photoshoot of Cameron naked in and around a swimming pool. is this the one shes trying to stop. its not a paparazzi shoot either, theyre black + white and professionally done.
so whats her point?

15

There are some other, black-and-white topless photos, professionally taken, of a younger Diaz, that abound on the Web.

And they’re bloody lovely.

16

So you seem to be implying that the ones this guy was trying to sell her are a different set of topless photos. But if these sunbathing ones are already out there (and I agree, they’re fan-frickin-tastic) what difference does one more set make?

And in this day and age, it’s almost worse that’s she’s smoking in those sunbathing pictures than that she’s naked.

17

I’m sorry, but I rather like the premadonna neologism, myself. It is clever and apposite.

Thank you, El Elvis Rojo

18

The legalese on “extortion”:

Apparently, these would be properly posed quality pics of Ms. Diaz, as opposed to candid shots. That would be how this could be seen as extortionate – though it would likely cause no harm to Cameron’s reputation, her lawyers could argue that it harms her property in an “earnings potential” sense by diluting the value of a possible Cameron-authorized full-fledged professional nude shoot, even if she does not intend to ever do one.

19

But where is the “violence or other criminal means” or “wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right”? There’s no law against profiting from someone else’s bad decision.

Also, if Rutter is found guilty of extorting Diaz, wouldn’t Diaz be an accessory to the crime in that she consented to the production of the photos?

20

IANAL, but it would be extortion if he were trying to force Ms. Diaz to pay more for the pictures than he could get for them from other sources.

In other words, if the photos are legally his property to sell as he wishes and he offers to sell them to her at a reasonable price, he is fine. If he is trying to use her modesty or reputation to force (ie. extort) her to pay more than the pictures are worth, then he has a problem.

The problem for the guy taking pictures of Joe Schmoe and Betty Bimbo at the Dew Drop Inn is that the pictures have no inherent value except as a threat to Shmoe’s or Bimbo’s reputation.