PCC rejects woman complaint 'who rank #3' in Google image search for "epic boobs" keywords

UK's Press Complaints Commission “rejected the complaint of a woman whose photographs -- which she states were taken when she was an adolescent -- ended up among Google's most common image search results for the phrase "Epic Boobs." This despite the following facts: she says she was 15 when the photos were taken years earlier; […]

UK's Press Complaints Commission “rejected the complaint of a woman whose photographs -- which she states were taken when she was an adolescent -- ended up among Google's most common image search results for the phrase "Epic Boobs." This despite the following facts: she says she was 15 when the photos were taken years earlier; the photos were uploaded to a supposedly private page operated by AOL's Bebo service back in 2006; she gave no one permission to use her image outside of Bebo; and she'd never had any contact with Loaded magazine prior to its search for "the Epic Boobs girl.",” reports The Guardian. “Loaded magazine under the headline "Wanted! The epic boobs girl!" said to have the "best breasts on the block". The accompanying pictures of her were taken from the internet and readers were offered a reward of £500 for assistance in encouraging her to pose for the magazine. She said the article, published in Feb 2010, had caused her upset and embarrassment, and that publication was in breach of privacy clause in the editors' code of practice. But PCC decided “that the pictures had been given such a wide circulation that it was no longer credible to describe them as private.” The magazine, in contesting complaint, explained that it was commenting on pictures that had been given extremely wide circulation on the net and pointed out that the complainant's photograph had featured in the top three of a Google image search on the word "boobs". The commission did sympathise with the woman, and accepted that the tastefulness of the article was questionable. However, the issue for the PCC was whether the publication of the information was intrusive, and it decided that it wasn’t.

[Source]