(August 2, 2010 at 5:11 am)Skeptisma Wrote: Again, it's not exactly clear what she said "no" to. Sure, we can speculate it may have been in regards to her taking her top off - but do we know conclusively? No.

No, it's not clear, but the evidence certainly points to her not wanting to take her top off. She is showing her cleavage, but that's all she goes for. She actively covers herself up after the woman pulls down her shirt, a sign that she is uneasy with her breasts being on show. Thirdly, she testified that she did not want her top pulled down.

Quote:If she weren't there for the filming, having a big camera in your face would certainly inform an individual that filming was taking place, yes? If you aren't interested in participating, remove yourself from the situation.

She originally knew nothing about the filming was what I meant. She went out to a club with friends; she didn't go there because GGW were filming there. That was a happy coincidence. However, she was perfectly fine with dancing in front of the camera; I'm sure most people would be at a nightclub.

As for removing herself from the situation; she shouldn't have to. She has every right to be there and enjoy the evening. Like I said, she was fine with the filming, but she was unaware of what they were there to do. She had no idea they were going to pull her top down, so she had no reason to think that moving out of the "situation" was a good idea. The "situation" hadn't happened yet.

Quote:Her "rights" were not violated in one movie, but several. Yet, this is the one she objects to because someone other than GGW pulled her shirt down? She has every right to sue, but they were not the ones that yanked her top off, nor directed her to engage the camera. Maybe they won't find that woman who actually did it, but does that give the plaintiff the right to sue whomever she wants? No.

She has every right to sue the filmmakers because they made money out of her misfortune. They turned a crime against her into a movie, and sold it without her permission. I do not know the law regarding this, but I would suspect it is illegal to make money off of someone without their knowledge or agreement, and illegal to sell what would probably be classified as "soft-core" porn without the permission of the parties involved.

Quote:"At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm..." Well, if it wasn't harmful back then, why is it harmful now? Because she has children that she'll have to explain this to?

No, because she didn't realize at the time it would be turned into a film and sold to people around the world. Of course it caused harm; when she found out she was emotionally upset. So would you be, if someone had filmed a crime against yourself and sold it for millions.

Quote:The fact that she had her top pulled off is not right - don't get me wrong here. However, when you are dealing with a legal matter it is a completely different story. She decided to sue GGW for the filming of such act and since they were not responsible for her top coming off, they shouldn't be held liable. Another commenter on the Pharyngula blog had an interesting point that basically says: The murder of civilians in Iraq was recently filmed yet no one cried foul on the part of the filmographer in that case. Is this really any different?

I never said they were responsible for pulling her top off. They were, however, responsible for (a) filming the event, (b) getting the permission of everyone to use the footage, and © making sure that everyone knew they were going to make money out of the film.

Nobody cries foul at the filming of murder of civilians in Iraq, probably because the footage is aired in America and the UK, and not on Iraqi television. I predict though, that if you were to find the widow of one of the civilians killed, and told them that someone had made a lot of money out the film of their loved one's death, they would sue the filmmaker as well.

Crimes don't cease to be crimes just because nobody reports them or tries to sue because of them.

Really, it's just comes down to a matter of what she is legally able to do here. Was it right for GGW to use her footage? Legally, yes. Morally, no. However, morality should not enter into a legal decision and it did not in this case.

She did not say "no" to the filming, that is quite clear. There are nearly 24 seconds of her dancing, laughing, flirting with the camera and, unfortunately, her breasts are bared by a person other than the GGW crew. Why not then would you not expect them to use that footage? They make money off of women exposing themselves and it's hard for me to fathom that she did not know who they were, nor what they were there intending to do.

Any conscious adult these days knows what GGW does. When they go to clubs/campuses/parties, it's not just one creepy dude with a camera, it's an entire entourage of people with logos and advertisements of exactly who they are. So, for her to say she didn't know what was going on amidst a sea of bare breasts seems a little off to me.

Skeptisma,

Then you uphold that people should actively seek out all media where they are represented and tell them "no" or it will be legal to use said media to make money? That is a terrible idea; how can one properly control their image when they are out in public?

Adrian,

I've heard that GGW is classified as "documentary" and because of that they are not required to obtain consent forms from all participants. I believe there is already precendent cases where GGW have won against others using that classification as a defense although I am unable to find them at this time.

Rhizo

(August 2, 2010 at 10:55 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Skeptisma,

Then you uphold that people should actively seek out all media where they are represented and tell them "no" or it will be legal to use said media to make money? That is a terrible idea; how can one properly control their image when they are out in public?

*Just to clarify I find GGW and Joe Francis to be sleaze, but they are very smart legally - something they would have to be considering all of the drama surrounding their company. What happened to the girl was unfortunate, and she should not have had to have gone through that, but it was not GGW's fault.

That is exactly my point. Sure, if you want to go around and contact every potential media outlet that may have filmed you that is well-within your rights, but it is not all that reasonable. You can't control everything, that's just the way it is - but what you can control and what you are aware of you should do something about. She knew she was being filmed and she knew her breast had been exposed, if I felt violated in any way because of that I would take action then - and against the appropriate perpetrators. If you allow a camera, for a company that profits in the way that GGW does, to film you in a public area then that is poor judgment.

She said "No". She was uncomfortable having her breasts completely exposed.

Sounds open and shut to me.

I don't give a shit what you do, but when someone says "No", it is time to reconsider.

On the side note, I went to the Shakespearean play "The Merchant of Venice".

Might I remind you, that if you insist on the Law over humanity, then, like Shylock, your life and lands were forfeit when, inevitably, it backfired.

It takes a better man to choose being human over being vengeful and overly legal.

The GGW crew made a conscious decision to add someones discomfort into their footage for their own profit. That should be a point of contention.

Man, I go on vacation and come back to this? Really, guys?

Skeptisma, Scented Nectar, and anyone else who agrees with them, you are all dead wrong.

The matter is really simple and clear, and it's amazing that only Adrian and Syn seem to get this. The woman said "no", and that's all you ever need to know about the issue. Pointing out that she was there, dancing, didn't sue the woman, showed cleavage, or anything else makes you a victim blamer. You are looking for ways to make the victim at fault for a violation committed against her. All she needs to do is say "no". Get it? No is pretty clear. There's no double meaning, no hidden message. When a woman says no, they mean no. And you're a fucking asshat if you think cleavage, drunkenness, dancing changes that very clear "no".

A woman has a right to wear a tank top. A woman has a right to drink with her friends. A woman has a right to dance. That does not mean someone can pull down her top, it doesn't mean a film crew can claim her presence was consent and use it to make money.

It is illegal to use someone in a film like that without consent, that's why the case was about consent. The ruling wasn't that consent wasn't needed, it was that consent was implied. That ruling is victim blaming bullshit. Adrian is spot on with his points.

It's amazing today how often people think that "No" means anything else than "No."

What a tangled world we live in.

Fortunately, sometimes even the internet gives a hint of both sides of the story.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrf...ezebel.php

Quote:As jury foreman Patrick O'Brien told a Post-Dispatch reporter at the conclusion of the three-day trial: "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

This morning I talked to GGW's attorney, David Dalton of St. Peters, who pretty much confirmed the line of questioning above. He added that Jane Doe never contacted police about her alleged assault or never prosecuted the woman (whose identity she knows) who pulled down her top. What's more, the jury could have awarded Jane Doe any amount of compensation from one dollar to $5 million. But in the end, they agreed not to award her one cent.

Why?

"Because the jury did not find her credible," says Dalton.

same source as above Wrote:Why not demand that Mantra simply remove the 20 seconds in which Jane Doe appears in the film? Because, says Evans, Mantra has already agreed to remove her from the video but has not actually followed through with their promise.

Evans adds that he and his client are planning an appeal. Curiously, says Evans, the jury tended to be mostly made up of people younger than 40.

"One of the jurors actually told us that his generation (under 40) didn't see the using of her image as 'that big of deal,'" says Evans.

It's all fun and games until someone uses YOUR image, then it's a lawsuit.

Odious, just odious.

And

Quote:"When the someone at Mantra decided to put her in the DVD, that's when the violation of privacy occurred," says Evans. "Our client's position is she was having fun dancing at a club, and someone pulled her top off. Even though something like that doesn't happen on regular basis, it didn't cause her alarm to call police. What caused alarm was finding it on DVD later."

I will again, restate, that juries often have been found to rule erroneously. Or to punish the victim.

Still, no means fucking no.

---

As a followup, in the shower (I often shower to think), I realized this:

What the jury thought was wrong. They did not consider that ones image belongs solely to oneself - the only person, in the law, who is harmed the most is the victim and their image.

Just like however the fundamentalist Christian will not use abortion, they have no right to project that value system, like this jury did, onto another. This jury believed that "it is not a big deal".

Just like some people, on seeing a faggot killed for being gay, will say it is not a big deal. Or a fundamentalist christian disparaging condoms, for whatever reason, in light of the harm that is done without condoms, will see that harm as no big deal. Or one who commits a crime, will often say that it is no big deal.

You get the idea? What one says is "no big deal", often belittles the issue at hand. Nothing is too small, not to be examined. That is the process of analysis. Shame these shining examples of humanity are incapable, by their own hand, of it.

As a staunch defender of personal rights, I put it to you, and all else here who think differently, to defend this, lest your statements be empty.

Your image belongs to you, until you sign it away. If you do not want it in something, you have full rights to remove it (celebrities often sue to remove their image from defaming articles or products that stole it - and win).

Never forget that. Never.

The way I see it the crew of GGW was definitely in the wrong. If they cannot produce a consent form for use of this girls footage, they should have excluded that footage from the DVD or make her unrecognizable (blur it out). The girl would have won this case easily if she had lived in our country.