A local resident is suing a Castro adult entertainment shop for using an altered nude photo of himself in its store window display without his permission. The store's owner is defending use of the photo, stating in court documents that he had every right to download the image off the Internet.

The photo at the heart of the lawsuit shows Castro resident Steve Baechtle, 42, lying on his stomach on a bed with his legs spread apart. According to his lawsuit, he had posted the photo to a gay male dating service.

A doctored copy of the photo, which included a sex toy added next to Baechtle and the words "yikes ... check out that wallpaper," appeared in the 18th Street window case of AutoErotica in April 2006.

In his suit Baechtle, who works as a life coach, claims that he lost 10 clients because of the photo parody and that he was "scorned and abandoned by his friends, exposed to contempt and ridicule and suffered loss of reputation and standing in the community." He goes on to claim in his suit that the incident caused him "humiliation, embarrassment, hurt feelings, mental anguish and suffering."

Storeowner Patrick Batt said he found the photo on a Web site based in Finland. He insists the photo was not copyrighted, and therefore, he had the right to use it as part of a humorous display.

"I picked it because of the wallpaper. It was a parody-like thing. It was not about this guy with his ass in the air," said Batt, who immediately removed the photomontage once Baechtle came into the store to express his outrage at the use of his photo. "It had only been up seven or eight days."

When he downloaded the photo Batt said he did not know the man in it or that he lived in San Francisco.

"Who would have thought a picture taken off a foreign Web site was of a guy who lives in the Castro," said Batt, who would not disclose the name of the Web site due to the litigation. "I have used it before without any problems. It is an archive of hundreds of photos."

Baechtle originally sought $5,000 from Batt, a former president of the Merchants of Upper Market and Castro business association, to settle the matter outside of court. According to correspondence between Batt and Baechtle's lawyer, Gill Sperlein, Batt countered with an offer of $250.

Negotiations over the settlement going nowhere, Baechtle filed his lawsuit this past April. He is suing Batt for violating his right to publicity and his privacy. The suit seeks $20,000 in damages.

Sperlein would not allow the Bay Area Reporter to speak to his client, but in an e-mail response to questions Baechtle wrote that on the site to which he posted his image "it is impossible to copy a picture on the site without a warning of copyright popping up."

"So it was clear to me it was stolen and altered. My e-mail address is clearly accessible near the picture in the profile, so the opportunity for permission was there but ignored," wrote Baechtle.

He said his clients did not know he had not given permission to the store to use his image and ended their contracts.

"My work with clients relies heavily on building rapport and keeping within the boundaries of moral and ethical behavior while supporting them and holding them accountable for their actions and commitments. Seeing the (altered) photo in the window was in direct conflict with their ethical expectations of me," wrote Baechtle.

Batt contends in court papers that Baechtle's "posting his picture online constituted a full release and waiver" of any and all claims against him, and that Baechtle "did not sustain any cognizable damages whatsoever." Batt also contends that the picture was "not so directly connected with commercial sponsorship, if any, or with paid advertising."

In this digital age where countless people, both gay and straight, think nothing of posting nude images of themselves online, while other Internet users download everything from photos to videos to songs and movies – sometimes legally, sometimes illicitly – legal experts said the lawsuit is a cautionary tale for everyone in cyberspace.

"Privacy and publicity rights and the Internet is pretty common issues today," said Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University. "In general, it is not a good idea to be downloading photos and using them commercially. Period."

On the other hand, Goldman said even though there are laws governing how photos can be used in the public realm, when it comes to the Internet it can seem like a lawless frontier where rules don't apply. The best way to protect where one's image ends up, advised Goldman, is not to upload it to a Web site. Or avoid being photographed nude altogether, he said.

"I do think the single best way to ensure a photo of you naked isn't in some place you don't want is to not take it," he said.

Guilherme Roschke, a lawyer in Washington D.C., said even when people post their photos online they have a reasonable expectation that their privacy will be respected and not end up being used in a commercial context without their permission.

"You have the right that someone won't appropriate your name or likeness," said Roschke, the Skadden Fellow for the Domestic Violence and Privacy Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This is a kind of an extreme thing this business owner did. If I knew a business owner was contemplating doing that, I would tell them to get a legitimate image from a legitimate source."

Roschke said the lawsuit should give pause to both business owners and people posting their images online.

"The lesson to take here is, sure people should be careful what they put online but people should also be careful with what they do with what it is they find online," he said. "As this business has shown, you can actually hurt people and end up getting yourself in trouble."

Batt said that since last spring he no longer displays photos he finds online in AutoErotica's window display, which can only be seen when walking east on 18th Street.

"It was for entertainment, not for a sale," Batt said. "There was no intent to harm anyone, obviously."

Asked what advice he had for other gay men who post photos online, Baechtle wrote, "Be aware that unless you watermark your photos conspicuously you may be at risk for the same abusive and damaging effects.�

The two sides are expected to have a court-ordered case management conference in August.