Is there a petition we can sign?

Yes here : http://womensrights.change.org/petitions..._gone_wild

(August 3, 2010 at 8:49 pm)Dotard Wrote: I thought I said this, but reading back I see I didn't. So late as it maybe, I'm gonna say it now.

(August 1, 2010 at 5:12 am)Synackaon Wrote: Now reasonably, it is obvious by your actions in public, that the goodwill or implied intention by your very actions imply that you wish the attention of all, including a camera crew.

I maintain the same holds true for the mini-skirted escalator rider. You calling it an 'exteme example' does not make it any less truthful.

Then you have no sense of perspective or gradients. Your actions indicate significant planning or realization of the potential outcomes (if you didn't, then people might have sympathy and try to stop you); the mini-skirt wearer, however, does not have the societal nor social expectations (we call it reasonable expectations) that indicate anything other than being seen as a normal member of the public.

You as an atheist enjoy a reasonable expectation of not getting special treatment - I'd hate to think how different your life may have been if all atheists were subjected to harassment (oh wait, many were until modern times...).

You enjoy being not harassed yet you deny that for others, despite common and legal reasonable expectations - cognitive dissonance worthy of certain... individuals who believe in certain ridiculous things.

(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Yes it did.

No it doesn't. Of course in your warped sexist view anything a woman does or wears is probably considered consent, the woman's verbal will be damned. She said no. Therefore, no consent. This is simple, it's plain English.

(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Her image was not used illegally. Didn't the jury already decide that? If the jury said, and the judge apparently agreed, GGW did not do anything illegal, then they didn't do anything illegal.
NOW End of Story.

So because OJ Simpson was declared innocent by a jury, he never committed the crime? Come on.

Your making an appeal to law, stating that just because the jury ruled that way that it makes them right. Supreme example of a logical fallacy.

(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Right. She didn't win. Why are you still arguing and accusing folks of victim blaming when the courts have decided there was no "victim".

I call it as I see it. A victim doesn't need the courts to declare it for it to be so. Another logical fallacy.

(August 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 3, 2010 at 10:12 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband's reported that she was in one of the videos.

So she was embarrassed that this came out and tried to cash in on the deal. For whatever reason, the jury did not buy her story.

I don't see that. I see a person who now has responsibilities embarrassed by illegal imagery of her existing in the public domain.

Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."

(August 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."

She's didnt' sue because she didn't want her husband to find out her sordid past, she sued because GGW used her imagry without her permission. Had this been a non-pornographic movie company using a hollywood star's image illegally, that company would be rolling in debt over all the money they'd be getting sued up their yin-yang over.

No. They violated her rights and the trial allowed the company to use her likeness in their movie without her consent.
That is illegal. A jury and a judge allowed GGW got away with a crime.

The fact that a jury voted this way does not mean except that she lost that trial and the jury that was selected didn't see the crime, but the justice system (including the general public) tends to see things the way I posted about several entrys ago on this thread - that there are no female sex predators, or women victims of certain kinds, or good single male parents. There are probably more problems, but these are hte ones I've recognized as the most serious.

(August 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."

That is completely tangential to the issue at hand; it doesn't matter how virtuous or slutty she is.

It matters, however, that people seem to reinterpret the minor permission of "It's okay to film me teasing you" (which is only that it is) with something else, in this case something major.

It's a contract law debate, with little bits of sexism and whatever-ism dropping all over the place. I'd prefer to keep this strictly to a legal discussion, but the environment, setting of this case and discussion have been rife with a dual nature - some blaming the plaintiff for bringing it on herself, others for the perception of the plaintiff as being a villain (I believe "money chaser" comes to mind), etc,.

It doesn't matter what you perceive it as - what matters is how far can you go with implied consent, how far can you go with making money off of a crime and what are the reasonable expectations.

We all go to clubs to party (well, some of us) and often we migrate with the crowd - often times people hide, by accident or intent, notices and signs, for all sorts of reasons. Other times they make them inconspicuous, etc,.

I never thought I'd join forces with In This Mind, but, as you know, strange bedfellows.

(August 3, 2010 at 10:15 pm)Synackaon Wrote:

(August 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."

That is completely tangential to the issue at hand; it doesn't matter how virtuous or slutty she is.

Actually it is, as her conduct was apparently sufficient to cause the jury to reject her argument. However that is largely irrelevant in a legal sense. It took forever to find this but:

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Quote:Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes

There is an exception for "commercial use" but I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed by what this means:

Quote:The most common problem you will run into is a photo with people in it. If you are using their images for editorial purposes, it's usually okay to use them without permission.

If you are using photos with people in them for advertising, you need their permission. People have a right to profit, and exclude someone else from profiting on their photograph or likeness. This right continues after their death and is given to their heirs.

Here's an example to illustrate the difference between editorial use and advertising use. If you had pictures inside a book illustrating people skiing, you would probably not need their permission. If you put that same picture on the cover of the book, you probably (*) should get their permission.

If Jane Doe were used on the box cover or DVD label a case could have been made for a "commercial use." As that obvious legal remedy was not used I assume that the short video we see is the totality of her involvement.

* Note the use of the weasel word "probably."

(August 3, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually it is, as her conduct was apparently sufficient to cause the jury to reject her argument. However that is largely irrelevant in a legal sense.

You just contradicted yourself. The jury is wrong to reject a legal arguement based on something that has nothing to do with her legal arguement. It doesn't matter if the jury decided to throw out her case - it doesn't mean the jury didn't allow GGW to get away with a crime.

(August 3, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If Jane Doe were used on the box cover or DVD label a case could have been made for a "commercial use." As that obvious legal remedy was not used I assume that the short video we see is the totality of her involvement.

This isn't the case. It's illegal to put an actress in a movie without her consent for any length in time. It doesn't matter what kind of movie is being made - they're profitting on her likeness in a product that is a movie. They needed consent from her and they didnt' get it and used her image illegally.

Just because the jury didn't agree with this doesn't mean what GGW did was anything but illegal. They commited a crime but didnt' get convicted because of it because the jury didn't see it that way.

(August 3, 2010 at 8:58 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: There are never male victims in sex crimes.

Quote:Men can't be raped by women because women don't have the 'equipment' and of course he was asking for it because he had an erection.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wom...raping+man

Sure, it is rare, but to say it "never" happens is untrue.

I'd need you to cite the "law" that they violated, Syn. First off, we are dealing with civil as opposed to criminal matters, here. Were it a criminal matter the district attorney would have brought the case.