What constitutes Extortion?

Remove all ads!

This article got me to thinking, and remembering the whole Letterman thing a while ago. I don't give a flip about Stamos, but the principal / idea is worth discussing with some of the fine legal minds here at SP.

So let's do an hypothetical. LKD is at a wild party at a hot club one evening. He sees another SP member there -- lets say, Splunge -- and the guy is dancing naked on a table with 2 girls, one guy, and a Venezualan alpaca. So LKD immediately snaps a few pictures of this wild and woolly sight (ha ha, get it, huh, get it?).

AFAIK, the pictures are now a legal, valid commodity. They were obtained legally in a public place, and LKD can now sell them to Star magazine, or the Enquirer, or Vanity Fair, or even the Alpaca Lover's Monthly if they want them.

LKD then calls Splunge and says "dude, I have got some SWEET pictures of you. Check your e-mail -- I could sell them to any number of publications, but I'd like to give you first crack (oh, man!) at these charming photos. The Enquirer would give me $70,000 easy, but they are yours for a mere $50,000."

Is this extortion? To be honest, were I in Splunge's shoes, I'd WANT a shot at getting the photos before the tabloids start bidding. Lawyer types, please advise.

 

As I understand it, extortion is simply Person A attempting to extract money from Person B through threats, intimidation, etc.; I don’t believe it matters whether Person B’s act was illegal or not.

In the specific example you used, I would actually demand money from you unless you wanted me to send you more naked pictures of myself.

 

LKD, your are a sick puppy for trying to sell pictures of old men.

 

1. I think that would constitute extortion.

2. Ironically, it would not be illegal to sell the photos to someone else. As you said, when you are in public, a photo can be taken of you with or without your permission.

3. What I do not know is what would happen if Splunge offered to pay you for them so you didn't sell them to tabloids. I don't know if it necessarily has to be a "pay me or else" situation.

 

Would that make it a dead-lock if LKD is trying to get money from Splunge to keep him from selling the photos to tabloids while Splunge is requiring money from LKD if he doesn't want to see more nude photos of the afore-mentioned "old man"?

 

Simple solution for me -- I'd just forward any e-mails from Splunge to CelticDream. Problem solved.

It seems like a funny line being drawn here -- I can put the pictures up for bid amongst all the tabloids, but I CANNOT offer them to Splunge first lest it appear that I am attempting blackmail. Very strange. I see the logic, but it is strange nonetheless.

 

My take, very briefly:

on #1: agreed. The threat under German law must be about 'ein empfindliches Übel' (i.e. roughly: something really bad or embarrassing sufficient to coerce an action, toleration or omission). It doesn't need to be a threat with something illegal.

on #2: You do have the right on your own photograph and whether you want to see yourself published. It is difficult to enforce. However, a couple of celebrities or public persons have in court succeeded in suppressing photos, probably through cease and desist orders under threat of fine, and with fines in case of violations. Those orders can be directed towards both publisher and photographer.

on #3: That would still be a behaviour only triggered by the threat to publish the photos. Arguably Splunge wouldn't buy them otherwise. No, strike that, he probably would

Final thought: Splunge could also pay the money, make sure that LKD takes the money, document it well, and then go to the police, or have the police document it. Then it would be a completed crime and the punishment would be more severe.

 

You have a devious mind there Rags... but a great idea nevertheless.

 

I think I understand what’s going on here. LKD actually has pictures of me dancing naked on a table in a bar, and this is his way of trying to extort money from me without making it look like extortion. Nice try, LKD, but your nefarious plot is “exposed” (har!). So I’m sending you your $50k and, taking Rags’ advise, I’ve documented everything; if you don’t send me $100,000, I’ll report you to the police and see to it that you go to jail for a looong time.

 

Hopefully Splunge will donate the $100K to the now blind and emotionally scarred bar patrons of said instance.

 

in the UK the above is true, until money becomes an issue, you can take my image, but you cant sell it for money without first obtaining my consent.

for example, If I used the CCTV cameras in the club to obtain an image or media of a city councillor shaking his butt on the dance floor with a woman who is not his wife, I cant sell that image to his wife.... I can give it to her on the other hand.

 

Good luck finding the pictures -- or the 50 grand! (in this case, the corpus a la habeus corpus) -- I've stashed it all in a place NO ONE would ever search . . . . think Papillon or Shawshank -- even so knowing, none would dare brave the Cavern of Doom . . .

Seriously, though, there seems to be no way for a decent person to give the pictured person a chance to get the pics without being accused of blackmail. I guess I'd just sell the stuff to the Enquirer and walk away laughing with the money.

Reminds me of a Dark Knight quote:

 

I'm not sure that Splunge was the best example

 

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I have to ask this. In this case, what constitutes a 'threat'? If I take a picture, and word gets out (without my direction or intent) to the subject of the photo, can they say they are 'threatened'? My intent is not at all malicious, nor did I ever even hint that they may be able to buy the pictures from me before anyone else got them, but the possibility is there anyway.

 

This whole thread reminds me of the old joke:

Do you have any naked pictures of your wife?

... do want some?

 

Gahhhhh! My eyes! It buuuuuurns!

 

It doesn't matter that word is out, the threat also need not be illegal.

A landlord threatening to kick out your grandma out on the street (which he may do legally when he needs the flat for himself) if you don't pay him $ X would threaten you with a legal action. What would make that illegal is that he has no legitimate claim for the money he demands of you and that he uses his power to evict your grandma as leverage.

That said, and as said, under German law your threat needs to be about 'ein empfindliches Übel' (i.e. roughly: something really bad or embarrassing sufficient to coerce an action, toleration or omission) and the goal must be to profit from that.

If you just have the photo, and people speak yout you having it, you don't do anything. You may face demands to destroy or hand over the pics though, but that's a different matter entirely.

 

My question was less about what it's about, but about what makes it a threat. If I have no intention of threatening someone, or even of communicating with them in any way, but just taking an action they don't want done, does that constitute a 'threat' to them? Again, in my example, I have made no attempt to communicate with them at all, but somehow they've found out I have the photos and would like to sell them to someone. Does that constitute a 'threat', even though I've taken no actions to communicate with them at all?