Teen Model Sues Apple Over Stolen iPhoto Pics

| News

19 year old Rebecca Battino is suing Apple and iPhone app company Samba Studios over risque self portraits she snapped with her digital camera that managed to find their way into the eXtreme Cam Girls iPhone app. Ms. Battino took the photos when she was 16, according to the New York Post, and she isn’t saying how they went from iPhoto on her Mac into the Samba Studios app.

While Ms. Battino is remaining tight-lipped over how the pics made the jump from her personal iPhoto library into eXtreme Cam Girls, she’s more than happy to express her anger over not getting compensated for the shots.

“I was just upset that I’m not being paid for my pictures,” she said. “I’m not embarrassed.”

Apple Store guidelines prohibit developers from including pornography in apps, so Ms. Battino was most likely at least partially dressed in the shots. Anyone hoping to check out what all the fuss is about, however, will be out of luck since the app has been pulled from Apple’s App Store.

Since Apple didn’t make the app and isn’t responsible for the app’s content, Ms. Battino may have a difficult time moving forward with a case against the company.

Apple and Samba Studios have not commented on the lawsuit.

Popular TMO Stories



might want to fix the reference to “Mr. Battino” unless her Dad was involved. (first line)

I also find it funny that she supposedly installed an app called eXtreme Cam Girls, just the kind of app that would want photos like this. If she didn’t want them posted on-line, why did she take them in the first place?!?!


?I was just upset that I?m not being paid for my pictures,? she said. ?I?m not embarrassed.?

Interesting statement that proves she’s just out for money. Any good legal team could use that to blow this suit out of the water IMO.

This may or may not qualify as Child Porn. I wonder if someone can get charged with trafficking in CP if they ARE the minor in the images?


Now mind you that I have no actual evidence on this matter, but what this sounds like to the ‘people are stupid’ side of me, is that this girl 1) took the photos, 2) gave them to a friend or uploaded them to the web, 3) found out that what she had done is, in numerous state (not sure about federally), considered distributing child pornography, and 4) is now looking for a ‘help me, I’m innocent and I was robbed’ scapegoat.

Also, would I ever be pissed if I found out that my 16 year old daughter (mine is 11, now) was taking ‘risque’ photos of herself, and giving them to ANYONE!

Bryan Chaffin

might want to fix the reference to ?Mr. Battino? unless her Dad was involved. (first line)

Thanks! We edited it accordingly.


“Aspiring model” wants publicity to help move her career along.

According to the article, she says that the photos “were swiped from her computer”. I just wonder what OS was on that computer?


I take it that the young lady is not an advocate of open-source, at least not when it is her likeness that someone open-sourced apparently without her permission.  This isn’t surprising in that prostitution and other related sex industries have always taken a dim view of open-sourcing their content, except for the introductory tease.

And Geoduck, it is not a defense that she is out for the money.  After all, a great many people are.  The question is whether she has an enforceable property right in her likeness that was infringed.


geoduck- if the pics could be determined to be CP, whoever produced them could be charged. There have been several cases in the last few years where boys were charged w/ CP for sending a photo of themselves and an underage girl to their friends.


And Geoduck, it is not a defense that she is out for the money.? After all, a great many people are.? The question is whether she has an enforceable property right in her likeness that was infringed.

Agreed. I was just thinking that a smart trial lawyer could convince a jury that she was a person of, shall we say questionable moral standards out out of control and out for a buck rather than some innocent child that was violated,  she’d loose most of her sympathy.

Thanks BanjoBanker for answering my second question.


Geoduck:  Well, it would take a very good lawyer indeed, because most judges properly wouldn’t let you get away with that, since her character is neither an issue or probative of any issue of law or fact.

And I forgot that she was underage when the photos were taken, depending on the content and nature of the photos, raise several issues.  First, are issues criminality and consent.  A minor can’t fully give consent, and if the pictures are pornographic, it would be illegal for one to knowingly post pornographic pictures of a minor.  But all of this depends on the facts.


most judges properly wouldn?t let you get away with that,

Interesting. Thanks


This is just a case of an inexperienced kid being careless at best, or guilt-ridden more likely, at getting caught doing something really dumb.

At age 17, she’s STILL not legally allowed to sign a contract to release these photos and something tells me mommy and daddy aren’t likely to either, so her only option is to turn it into some sort of crime and play the victim. If she gave ANYBODY access to her computer, including any siblings or friends, she knows who the culprit likely is, but cannot admit her own culpability in this matter.

Lee Dronick

According to the article, she says that the photos ?were swiped from her computer?.

By whom? Someone either had physical access her Mac or iPhone when it was open or had her password and login logged on via a network. Another other possibility is that she had them on the web somewhere and the images were screen captured or downloaded.


It doesn’t really matter how these photos got online. She took them, therefore she has the copyright on them, correct? This company allegedly took those copyrighted photos and used them (for profit) without permission. It’s a stupid thing for a company to do.

Maybe she did in fact post them online herself. Maybe she sent them to friends who spread them around. Maybe her computer was “hacked”. None of these things would nullify her copyright.

Lee Dronick


I wasn’t thinking of copyright, but she is suing Apple when they almost certainly didn’t give the photos to Samba Studios or provide Samba with access to the girl’s Mac.

Play Ultimate

Apple is being sued only because it has deep pockets. I’m not a lawyer, but a) Apple didn’t produce the App,  b) as was mentioned previously, there is likely no nudity only risque-ness. c) Apple appears to have removed the App after she complained. Don’t see much of a case against Apple.
Now, depending on how Samba got the pictures, there may be an issue of copyright. It will be interesting to find out how Samba actually did get the photos.  (Maybe similar to Facebook posting where you declare that you own the copyright to the photo. She may have posted to something similar assuming she ‘owned’ copyright. :-o)

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account