This paper summarizes applicable research into federal and Virginia law concerning possible causes of action of Sally Snapshot against various third parties and analyzes the ethical aspects of her position under deontology and Act-based utilitarianism. Sally probably does not have a valid cause of action for copyright infringement arising out of the copying or posting of her original image. She has a strong case for invasion of privacy and, against certain defendants, a somewhat more tenuous cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Virginia tort law. She has solid grounds under both Act-based utilitarianism and under deontologically-based ethics for recovering against most defendants.
Basic Scope of Copyright Protection
Sec. 301(a) of the Federal Copyright Act, secs. 101 et seq., preempts state copyright law claims. The issue is whether the claim in question under state law is substantially similar to that presented under the Federal Copyright law. A copyright infringement claim need not be based on the fault of the defendant. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasions of privacy do require examination of the motives/intent of the defendant and are therefore not preempted.
Copyright law generally protects expressions of artistic, literary, or other intellectual works. The author is granted a statutory monopoly for stated periods of time in publishing, copying and distributing such works. The hypothetical refers to "'her' sophisticated computer editing software," so presumably Sally is its originator. According to Gregory (248), "copyright law is the predominant method of protecting computer software."
There is, however, considerable controversy over the extent of protection afforded computer software under copyright law. It is unclear whether the copying of the underlying image was a copying of her original source code, which is protected, Apple Computer, Inc. v. ...