Complaint Review: mugsshots.com

Sahar Sarid who owns mugshots.com has been arrested by NYPD on multiple charges one of them being resisting arrest.  All the mugshot website owners have criminal records and their own mugshots.

Tyronne Jacques Spencer of ImageMax has a felony warrant for his arrest in Louisiana.

The mugshot owners are getting their own website coming soon that lists there Entire public records home address, phone numbers, photos and that of ALL their family members.

The website will also have weekly contests on funniest email, funniest phone conversation (speaker phone) and funniest photos taken in public of mugshot website owners and mugshot removal perverts.

Sahar Sarid owns - mugshots.com

Sahar Sarid converts public records to his use (18 USC 641), criminally infringes name and likeness copyrights (18 USC 2319 and 17 USC 506), stalks (18 USC 2261A), blackmails (18 USC 873) and extorts (18 USC 880) money from people.

Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)
http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

Sahar Sarid - 3213 Dover Rd, Pompano Beach, FL 33062 - (954) 782-9292

Technically you could also hold them to copywrite laws stating they have no proof of transaction with the state for your photo - another argument you would win.
- I guess you missed the whole "PUBLIC RECORDS" idea.  By the way even if these photos were subject to Copyright laws if the person took this to court it would be thrown out in about 30 seconds because they have no standing.  The reason is that the Copyright would be "owned" by the Law Enforcement Agency that took the mug shot and it would have to be them who needs to may any claims.  Which of course they are not going to do because..wait for it...they are PUBLIC RECORDS and the police have better things to do with their time.

Internet Law is different. It refers to the "who is going to sue you" act of common sense. Most things you can get away with, gambling, no sales tax, etc. However. If your photo was removed from the arresting states website due to time or any other constituant, it becomes slander.

Many sites like facebook have terms of service which include your permission to show your photos to the public. Since mugshots.com has authorized the distribution of your photo without signing your consent, they can be held liable and would probably lose a court case within terms of service realm. Technically you could also hold them to copywrite laws stating they have no proof of transaction with the state for your photo - another argument you would win.

Assuming mugshots.com really cares who you are. I can tell you what your time is worth. Paying the company 200 bucks is well worth it over getting someone to do maliscious things to them. It will cost more money and too much of your time. Simply call your buddy the lawyer so you don't have to use their suggested methods. Or hire some computer science student to remove it "manually". Which may of course start the whole cycle for you all over again. peace.

The issue comes once a week with one site or another, there's lots of discussion on this on Avvo. In short, arrest records are public records, and yes, the website has the right to charge for removal.

From an Avvo post:

" There is this pesky constitutional provision called the First Amendment. Mug Shots or persons who were arrested and/or convicted are public documents. If you were arrested and/or convicted, and if your mug shot is publicly available, this is a public record that records an actual and truthful fact--that you were either arrested or convicted. If someone published a list of persons who had been arrested for DUI, as long as the list is accurate, no one could possibly complain about the fact that his name appears on this list. The same is true for lists and photographs of registered sex offenders. The same is true for mug shots. Do they have the potential for harming your reputation. You bet!! Do you have a claim based on this harm---no way. Is it illegal for companies to accept fees in exchange for removing your photo from its published collection of mug-shots? Clearly not. 

Here is your problem----a mug shot was taken of you. It is available from sources on line. You do not own the copyright in the mug-shot---the copyright is owned by whoever took the photograph and/or the governmental authority who paid him. Thus, you have no legal right to limit its use and distribution. It is a true picture that reflects an unfortunate but real event that occurred in your life. Guess what--you have no claim for invasion of privacy---you have no right to keep private your arrest and conviction history---including mug shots. "