It was two long years ago when Jason Fortuny posted a fake ad on Craigslist, saying he was a female bondage enthusiast looking for a "white or latin man ... 2 give intense pain and discipline." Fortuny then took the replies he got (178 total, 145 with photos showing men "in various states of undress") and posted them online without alteration, complete with pictures, email addresses, and even some phone numbers.

The event led to a major dust-up over everything from the safety of Craigslist to the future of online dating to who owns a photo that is sent via email. Did Fortuny have a right to publish this material?

His 178 victims certainly don't think so, and finally one is suing him for $75,000 (after a protracted number of months spent trying to find where Fortuny lived so he could be served with a summons), alleging copyright infringement, public disclosure of private facts, and "intrusion upon seclusion." Although the name of Fortuny's victim has not been revealed (either by Fortuny or by the lawsuit), is the photo the man sent enough to personally identify him and cause $75,000 in harm? Is harm even required for him to prevail? 

Here is Fortuny's side of the story. He's filed an extensive letter with the court alleging fair use of the photo (which was published in a "thumbnail" form, much like the image search services do) while also claiming the whole thing was a joke intended to satisfy his own curiosity about who would reply to such an ad. Fortuny also says he is defending himself in court, sans lawyer, against the charges.

Who will prevail on this one? The legal issues here are complicated and muddy, but most lawyers argue that the copyright of a letter or email resides with the sender of that email... but that the recipient may have a "fair use" claim that could allow for republication. Maybe. Who knows. If Fortuny's case does go through the trial process it could actually end up setting an important legal precedent, one way or the other. Meanwhile, be careful what you send to strangers online...