RE: Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.
August 3, 2010 at 2:33 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2010 at 2:50 am by Autumnlicious.)
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.
