Gawker is one of the most disgusting media outlets to ever exist, when you sit and think about it. I’m not saying I don’t get down in the dirt myself, because of course I do. But, I’ve yet to host someone’s sex tape against their will. Actually, I’ve yet to host a sextape at all, come to think of it. I don’t post articles about J-Law’s latest nip-slips, or any gutter trash about Reality TV no-counts. I don’t incorporate in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes. The list goes on and on, and would take 5 days to go through. Gawker is the absolute worst, for a whole host of reasons.

When one of my stories on Gawker made it to the /r/news subreddit (I’ll look for link later), I saw that plenty of people who didn’t give two shits about GamerGate, still wanted to see Gawker burn. They started sharing their favorite horror stories about the hellhole. Everybody hates the place! It was a special thing to see, in many ways, but also sobering. These people have been fucking us over for years with impunity. But at least the stories are finally starting to be told.

The incident I’m going to tell you about today, is one of those stories. Photographer Sarah E. Torrent has alleged that Gawker and Sam Biddle used her work without crediting her, and that Biddle in particular ignored her early pleas through Twitter’s direct messaging feature. We don’t have the DMs yet, as she hasn’t posted them. She has posted emails that she exchanged Gawker after the fact, though, showing that her work was inappropriately used without credit or payment of any kind.

This fits in with Gawker’s pattern of abuse. They have no respect for anyone, or anything. A legal boundary is just another taboo for them to violate. Hopefully, some enterprising attorney will make them pay for violating this one. I’ll also keep you updated on any further developments that may occur on Twitter, or elsewhere.

  1. But, I’ve yet to host someone’s sex tape against their will. Actually, I’ve yet to host a sextape at all, come to think of it. I don’t post articles about J-Law’s latest nip-slips, or any gutter trash about Reality TV no-counts.

    And to top it all off, they throw out accusations of misogyny to deflect when people point out how corrupt and shitty they are.

    1. You know, this makes me think that Colbert may have had a point when he was talking to Sarkeesian on his show: why should we expect anything resembling respectable news or journalistic ethics to come out of Gawker and, by extension, Kotaku? They’ve proven time and time again with their actions that they’re basically the internet equivalent of E! and other tabloids that run on sensationalist garbage. The only difference is that they won’t admit it, and everyone takes them seriously.

    2. Hell, you don’t even need to go to actual celebrities, just look at how they handled Olivia Munn’s nude photos the same way. Thanks to the language she shopped onto pics meant just for her BF she gets literally called whore & worse wherever she goes.
      Gawker: Pro-est womyn-est ‘news’ site on the interwebs.
      I hope this shit encourages bonafide news orgs like Slate to run more hit pieces on tabloids in the future to force them to keep their shit clean.

      1. Worst is, I actually think “good for them” (Munn and her bf)
        I hope they have all kindsa crazy sex and have good fun doing it.
        I think I’m in a minority of people that likes Munn for her crass and silly ways, even if she is “exploiting” her sexuality to “get ahead”

        The pictures just confirmed that her persona isn’t that divorced from the reality (I only saw some words on a perfectly normal picture tbh) She’s got a dirty mind, and that is her own damn business (but still kinda awesome)

        It’s *really* fucking sad that the same places crying about misogyny will crap all over a woman for having sexual appetites that aren’t vanilla (I’m one tame motherfucker myself, but I don’t judge others)

  2. I’d advise her to retain a copyright lawyer and at that point file a federal lawsuit against Gawker in her state. I believe the penalties for infringement can go up to $150,000. The damages are presumed. Biddle’s attorney is bluffing. She knows they fucked up. Someone needs to tell Torrent to get a lawyer and demand a real settlement.

    Also, I’m fairly certain that the Caymans are covered under the DMCA, however someone should check on this.

      1. Browsing through her twitter feed, its not something we would ever want to affiliate with. Far too extreme, far too hateful against certain races.

  3. Yeah, hosting a sex tape of a real person against their will while calling all gamers misogynists. Really crystallizes the issues here and puts it on clear display.

  4. Just a thought… is the image belonging to her still up on Gawker?
    Couldn’t she try sending a DMCA takedown notice to Gawker’s hosting provider to at least get the image taken down? Doesn’t matter that she’s in Lebanon.

    1. Being hosted in the Caymans leads to some murky copywrong nonsense. Tarantino STILL couldn’t get his script taken down even after the movie released.
      What hope does a nobody photographer have? Even if they hosted something she got killed over I doubt they would still remove any photographs.

      1. A quick whois on returns Fastly as their CDN. They are based in San Francisco (surprise!) therefore they should follow DMCA laws. It doesn’t matter where the company, Gawker in this case, is located. What matters is the location of the servers where the content is being hosted.

        I work in the adult industry (not a pornstar lol) and one part of my job is sending DMCA notices to sites/hosts that infringe our copyright and try to make money off it. Hosts, even CDN’s, usually follow through with our DMCA notices and proceed to take down copyright infringing content.

        I think the problem with Tarantino was that the script was not hosted on Gawkers servers, they just posted a link to where the script was (, whose host is based in Europe)

        1. Ah. How odd. My lookup returned Markmonitor. Maybe that’s just the serving up of pages themselves.
          What about the Celebrity nude leaks though? Or do they just get told the legal battle isn’t worth it and just settle because it’s spread too far anyway?
          I’m not based in the US, so I presumed it was just a result of the servers being in a different country.

  5. Please drop this article, or rather, be mindful of how the media can run with it. The people in question are extremely and openly racist. It starts getting into dangerous territory when they start telling people of X race they dont have the right to talk to them b/c of the color of their skin. Its too extreme and not something we will want to affiliate with.

    Dig through the comments made by the people in question and ask yourself if its worth it for another stab at Gawker.

    1. Yes it’s worth it. It doesn’t matter the character of the person in question, just whether it’s true or not and that Gawker screwed her. People aren’t perfect. They shouldn’t be expected to be politicians on social media. And when something bad happens to someone, people shouldn’t be digging into their past/character and using anything negative to simply discredit them. All that matters is the facts.

      1. It does matter. There is no reason for GGers to be stupid, and it would be stupid not to distance the act of theft from the person in question. I’m not outright suggesting the article be censored, but rather consider how to make a clear distinction between the person and the act. Adding a disclaimer is one way to remove such an affiliation.

        If you care about the FACTS, then objectively you have to consider the FACTS about the person and the narrative at play. Be smart.

        1. I still don’t know how you distance the act of theft from the person in question, unless you’re talking about censoring the name. To me this makes no sense and doesn’t matter imo.

          GamerGate isn’t going to win a PR battle because the media will just cherry pick anything they want and use it to discredit everyone in GG. This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with GG though so I don’t understand why the concern. This is more about Gawker screwing someone over unrelated to GG.

          1. Yikes, as a GGer I thought my fellow GGers had more common sense about them.

            You distance the act from the person in the same damn way we have been doing it with opposing the misogyny label, the harrassers and doxing. Simply put, say “our views do not reflect those of the people in question”. I mean good god, we demand disclaimers for gaming articles but dont realize or refuse to add them for content on our side of the fence? Theres nothing to lose by doing so. I’m just advocating common sense.

            Its a mess that can easily be avoided if we are just a bit more diligent. If thats too much for ya then I’ll just “censor” myself so no one else gets triggered.

    2. The fact that she’s an unpleasant individual doesn’t act like a magic cloak that gives Gawker the right to steal her work.

      1. I didnt say it does, but we also cant be hypocrites. Look at how we mock Ian Miles Cheong for his nazi comments, yet in order to take a stab at gawker we are presenting a woman who circles “kill all jews” on her calendar, likes posts that say black people dont have the right to talk to them, and so forth. She’s dating the person whose photograph was taken, which I’m not sure people know.

        What this does is present some very bad optiks, can push away our friends on the #notyourshield side. I dont think most in GG want to have that kind of affiliation attached to GG. So just like we outted the shills, reported harrassers, made clear we dont support doxing/threats… the same measures should be taken when using such people to push a story.

        All it takes is “we do not support or condone the views expressed by this individual”. Over all this article is just not a good one to run with, but if it has to run be smart about it. I mean common sense for fk sake.

          1. Where did I mention anything about it being fair or not?

            I recommended adding a disclaimer saying you or GG do not agree with their views but speak only on the behavior of Gawker. Again, common sense Ralph. Did you visit their twitter page to make sure you are aware of how this can play out? Again, just know who and what you are presenting and how to cover all bases so its not implied GG supports people call for the death of all jews and that blacks are subhuman. Again be smart about it.

        1. Again, running the story does NOT entail endorsement of her viewpoints. She isn’t being painted as a heroine of GG, just as someone who has had her work stolen by Gawker.

  6. hehehe… Maybe she could negotiate for ownership of Gawker – they’ve been losing a lot of ad revenue, so it can’t be worth what it was anymore.

  7. While I know thieves make a great headline, they’re infringing on her copyright, not stealing. Stealing would require that Ms Torrent wouldn’t have access to the original copy anymore. Infringer would be a more accurate term.

    Yeah, I’m being pedantic here, but I really loathe the “copyright infringement = stealing” myth.

    1. no no, it’s a good thing to look over semantics, especially for fuzzy legal areas like this. It’s like the whole “download a car” thing. Unless they broke into her home to steal the originals then it’s not ‘theft’ in the eyes of the law and she’d lose on that wording.
      I would suggest more like “profits off of” and then at the end “and cease infringement”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.