I should point out that while I agree with what you said here in regards to assessing the fishy aspects of Vicky and Masha's cases, when I read the case about Masha, it was said that she was encouraged by her $$$-minded attorney to sue people possessing her material not for copyright infringement (because the material was obviously never copyrighted as intellectual property, since no money was ever intended to be made off of it), but for "damages," i.e., for something akin to "gaining gratification off of her pain." That would be every bit as greedy and ridiculous as you suggested, especially if her material never showed any indication that she was filmed under duress, because that is effectively suing people for looking at images on a screen, and ultimately for thought control. If that can be justified, then we could also justify arresting necrophiliacs who collect readily available pics of serial killer victims if we suspect they were getting gratification off of viewing those pics.

The only way she could successfully sue anyone for copyright infringement of that material is if she had copyrighted it herself (which she could not have done legally), and if any of the people who possessed that material were selling it to other collectors for profit.