Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Tiberius]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro...2bc8b.html

This poor woman was dancing at a club where the "Girls Gone Wild" film crew just happened to be. They started filming her, and despite her saying "no" several times when they asked her to remove her shirt, a woman in the crowd pulled it down for them.

Years later, she finds out that the footage was used in one of the films, and she sues them since she didn't give consent, let alone sign any contract.

The jury apparently were convinced that despite her saying "no", she knew exactly what she was doing and was fine with the whole thing.

What. the. fuck?!?

[Minimalist]

Sounds as if she sued the wrong party.

"a woman in the crowd pulled it down for them."

[leo-rcc]

I don't know how it works in other countries, but here you need to sign for release of footage where you are recognisable, unless it is a shot where you just happened to wander in like at a footbalmatch or in a large group or crowd. But for interviews or interaction with cameras present you need to sign a release form. We had to for robotwars as well, which also allows them to broadcast our footage if we colonize other planets.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Sounds as if she sued the wrong party.

"a woman in the crowd pulled it down for them."

Yep.The 'woman in the crowd' could be charged with assault.

Here there is no right to privacy from being photographed or filmed. (even on your own property) The images are the property of the photographer.Hence those appalling tabloid 'current affairs' shows which chase shonky builders and paparazzi.

[Autumnlicious]

The woman in question is a private individual, and thus is entitled to privacy that celebrities and public figures do not enjoy.

The GGW film crew is in the wrong. She said no and didn't give consent to the film crew - just because she was there is no excuse. In my opinion, this is victim blaming in the works. Reminds me of a recent case reported in the NY Times where a woman wearing a skirt was riding an escalator and a man behind her took the opportunity to take a cell phone shot of up her skirt. He was arrested and convicted, but I was troubled by reading the comments section - many anonymous posters decried the sentencing and stated she (the victim) was at fault.

I understand in life there are certain common sense things, but this is not one of them. If anything, a woman has the right to be in public with the same expectation of privacy as a man, just like a man has the right to step outside and not be beaten to shit opportunistically and then blamed for it.

And yes, you have the right to not be filmed, photographed or recorded.

Padriac, you are dead wrong on this area.

Might I note that it took a mere 90 minutes for a jury to make a decision? Verily, a trial of my peers is a terrifying prospect, considering my "peers", by consideration of the county, not me, will most likely be bested by a parsnip in an IQ test.

[Minimalist]

I never like to make judgments on court cases as a result of news stories. You never hear all the evidence that the jury was given.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Padriac, you are dead wrong on this area.

If you re read my post ,you will see I said 'here' meaning in Australia where it is indeed the case as far as I'm aware..


I'm confident this is the case because of an incident about a year ago: I was taking photos at the local mall.A security bloke approached me and told me I needed permission to take photographs because the mall is private property. I stopped because I did not know the law,but it did not seem right to me.

As it turns out,my best mate is a barrister. I asked him. His response was the security bloke was wrong. There is no right to privacy in Australia.There ARE laws of trespass. He could have legally asked me to leave,but had no right to stop me photographing anything or anyone.


Of course I'm aware few if any lawyers are legal polymaths, so my mate could be mistaken.(he's a senior prosecutor,the equivalent of an American ADA) ) I'll happily stand corrected on the basis of a more informed opinion on Australian law.

[Dotard]

If I go to the mall wearing skin tight speedo briefs, a tinfoil hat, and nothing else, then start doing a little kooky-dance and somebody takes a photo or video of it and posts it on youtube, do I have the right to sue him/her? Should they be arrested and convicted?

Would anybody be justified in 'victim blaming' if they claimed it was my fault that I got filmed because I decided to do a kooky-dance while wearing nothing but a speedo brief and a tinfoil hat?

Do I retain the right not to be photographed or video recorded if I engage in such a behavior?

It is my contention your same answers to the above questions apply to the mini-skirted escalator riding girl described in Synack's post.

[Autumnlicious]

If I go to the mall wearing skin tight speedo briefs, a tinfoil hat, and nothing else, then start doing a little kooky-dance and somebody takes a photo or video of it and posts it on youtube, do I have the right to sue him/her? Should they be arrested and convicted?

One always has the right to sue. Whether or not one wins, that is matter up to the courts.

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.

Would anybody be justified in 'victim blaming' if they claimed it was my fault that I got filmed because I decided to do a kooky-dance while wearing nothing but a speedo brief and a tinfoil hat?

If you seriously think that you can make an extreme example in a relative world and try to even link it past a remote doubt to this, you've got another thing going.

What if you were dancing at a club, and someone went over and pants'ed you? Hm? Would they have the right, or anyone else for that matter, to film and perhaps even profit from your misfortune?

I already have the answer - No. For the very same reason snuff films and acts of cruelty are illegal to manufacture/profit from (the real mccoy, not the fakey/special fx stuff that we use in movies) in this country.

The crux of the issue is, is it allowed to profit from a crime done to another, possibly by encouraging it passively or actively? I say no. The laws regarding criminality in the vein of murder and torture say no. It's a shame that a trial of our peers seems ignorant of that fact. It is undeniable.

The film crew could have cut out that section, but their action of leaving it in demonstrates, by virtue of post processing, a decision to keep and sell that footage as part of their product.

Privacy issues aside, they are directly profiting from a crime that they possibly encouraged.

[Minimalist]

Once again, Syn, you are only hearing one side of the story. This reminds me of the hype surrounding the famed McDonalds Coffee Case wherein internet writers tried to stir up sympathy for McDonalds because a jury awarded a woman damages for burning herself on their coffee.

http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html

The real facts of the case, which went to the jury, substantially effect the outcome and make McDonalds look like a bunch of twats.

McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims, but documents showing that they knew of more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992 were admitted in to evidence. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of the intentionally created hazard. McDonald's even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down the temperature of its coffee. McDonald's also said that based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.