Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Autumnlicious]

Due to the nature of the show, I'm pretty sure the signs would have said something like '...filming, including any toplessness or nudity'.

Unknown, but if they did, it doesn't change the fact that they are profiting from her obvious discomfort - something that cannot be denied.

But if they determined that she was indeed willing to show her nipple (circle part of it may have been enough for this to be valid), then the shirt pulling would not have been seen as any more damaging than the parts she admits consenting to. Thing is though, I don't really know. None of us do. We don't have access to the unedited film and the complete court transcripts.

No we do not, but that doesn't change the nature of the discussion, as the uncertainties were already stated earlier.

So, therefore, by your logic, if someone is wearing their pants rather low, exposing their underwear and partially the ass, it is fine to film their ass, especially if someone else happens to expose it for you, against their obvious discomfort?

It was used immorally and unethically, but not technically illegally. All the jury was deciding on was the legal facts, not the morals. The morals would have only come into play, had they determined that she had NOT legally consented to filming. Only at that point are they allowed to use morals and emotions to determine an appropriate compensation for the amount of damage done to her.

In a legal grey zone, laws are often wrong. That is why we have a little thing called judicial review. And people are often wrong - the average thimble headed gurken we call jurors are more swayed by theater than logic, as can be seen from "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

And her image was used illegally, part of it was because of a crime done to her (assault). One is almost never allowed to use footage taken of a crime unless specifically released by the involved parties or ordered by a judge. The jurors evidently believed, from the quotes earlier, that their view of personal image is "no big deal." Does that change the fact that someone was uncomfortable for going the whole nine yards and yet they still used it? No.

Contractual consent is different than sexual consent. With sex one can legally revoke consent at any point. It's possible that in ggw's case, consent starts and ends with entering and leaving the filming area.

There was no contract signed. The best they did falls under the law of implied oral consent (no pun intended) - which is very loose and usually cannot be used to enforce anything other than a he-said, she-said situation. That is why people make these obscenely long contracts detailing the extant to which you sign away your rights.

Did I say that? I think that ggw should be held to the same contractual standards as other companies regarding the consent of an intoxicated person. But apparently that was not what this case was about. Unfortunately they seem to be allowed to contract with drunk people, so the jury was likely not allowed to consider that aspect of it.

Signing a contract while not in the right mind voids it. Why should an implied oral contract be any different, considering the lesser nature of it compared to a full blown contract? Hint, it isn't.

I'm not. I don't think she attracted the shirt pulling. I don't think she deserved it. I do think though, that she may be a money chaser, and that she doesn't seem to have had a legal leg to stand on.

Punishing someone just because you think they are a "money chaser" when there are numerous faults and issues all over the place isn't just immoral, it is against the spirit of the Law.

And I am always against using the letter of the Law against the spirit of the Law.

---

Entering an area without signing a contract does not in anyway hold one to ANYTHING but a minor agreement (in small claims matters) and is mostly UNENFORCEABLE.

Apparently it means 'implied consent' legally. Not knowing the legal technicalities, I can't know much further about it, but it's legal. Obviously it's a law that should be looked at and improved since it's not clearcut enough, but that's how it seems to be right now.

You miss the point - it is a very weak binding agreement. A verbal agreement, for example, is much stronger. What if the "notice" was not displayed conspicuously? It might have been there (letter of the law) but it was not obvious (spirit of the law). You get many of these examples in case law.

Seriously, "She consented to the filming by entering the signed, cordoned off ggw area."? Really? So if I happen to enter an area for filming, perhaps out of curiosity or stupidity, I have given the film makers a right to encourage and profit off of my image without me signing a RELEASE FORM?

I don't know the details of what constitutes 'implied' consent vs what is probably 'explicit' consent. In fact, I am only going by second hand info that the signs and cordoning off is how ggw does their dancefloor filmings. For some, like when they approach women on the beach and talk them into some tit showing, someone said that they get them to verbally agree on camera. I don't know the details or whether what I read was even accurate.

Implied consent is a weak and severely limited form of contract - that is due to the fundamental nature of US courts stating that one cannot sign away certain rights even knowingly and for others has to be spelt out so as to prevent abuse.

And yes, that is a verbal contract - they have witnesses, and usually film it so to assuage claims of being mislead.

A bit of skin and it's all over, eh? So if you manage to show me part of your backside, I am given full right to film someone else pants'ing you?

Possibly in the legal sense, if it was under the same contractual situation that ggw was operating under. In fact it sure sounds like it, since I was already consenting to showing my butt in the filming area. If however, I reported you for it being a crime, or if you had exposed something that I had not been already willing to show, maybe not. With crimes, there might be laws. I know that one can often not be allowed to profit off of one's own crimes, but in the case of others, there are news and documentary shows that can legally do it all the time. Someone wrote that ggw has described themselves as making documentaries.

No, it isn't allowed, unless you sign away your rights to sue or state that you can show skin or any other variation.

And it is often seen that people claim "to be making documentaries" in the process of violating the rights of others. It's called shifting the blame - and it is done under the assumption that no one will catch them on that and null all their previous work.

And once again, I will refer to the rape victims dropping or not even reporting things - just because they pull out of it (hehe) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you do not report a crime doesn't make it any less real. Like Roman Polanski raping an child and fleeing to Europe before serving his debt - the asshole only got away due to procedural errors (ah, idiot Americans) - not a statute of limitations breach. Just because you can flee justice long enough, shouldn't automatically absolve oneself. Nazi hunters will tell you that, and I agree with them.

Profiting off of a crime is illegal. Shame people seem to think that this kind of assault is not a crime.

Who said that anyone is pro-shirt-yanking? It is only not **legally** a crime, since it was not reported to the police, not even complained about or gotten angry about at the time, and the statute of limitations is likely long over.

True, but we have a little something in Minnesota called tolling the statute of limitations, which dictates that the statute of limitations can be offset or even discarded in cases of being a minor at the time, being mentally incompetent at the time (in this case, that applies), etc,. Research it - I did.

You know, plenty of women who claimed to have been raped often drop the charges, not because the crime never occurred but because they are made to feel so uncomfortable in pursuing justice they give up. Guess they're all faking it, against what statistics say (I read quite a few of the posted articles in the Objectification thread and found several credible).

What does that have to do with this woman's girlfriend horsing around and yanking her top? She was not raped. We are not talking about a traumatic event like rape where the woman isn't believed.

Not found credible - sounds mighty like being not believed. That aside, if a crime is not traumatic, it is not entitled to justice?

There was a crime. There was profit. There was drunkeness. There were weak contracts. Looks to me to be nothing but a legal minefield that should have taken months to decide, not a few days.

Once again, no contract and profit from a crime.

Legally, an implicit contract. Legally, no crime. Morally? Doesn't matter, the jury must only determine the facts as they pertain to the legalities in question.

Fuck morals - that is part of what the dumbass jury decided to use anyways...

I am trying to point out that implicit contracts are very weak and personal control over image is regulated in industry with explicit written contracts - thus the argument that it is okay to use an implicit contract when the running standard is contrary is weak, within doubt. One must consider the standards the defendant is partial or connected to - this is one of them.

I'd mighty like to pants you...

Ok, but first I'd like to show it to you by my own volition so that you will have my implicit consent for while I remain in the filming area...

That takes the fun out of it.