Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Autumnlicious]

The issue of implied consent was strictly pertaining to the filming of it. Not to the top pulling itself. There are a number of ways that she probably did not have a legal leg to stand on. Below is some stuff that is just my own opinion/guesses/partial info based on the limited stuff I've had access to.

- She consented to the filming by entering the signed, cordoned off ggw area.

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.

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?

Are you so fucking stupid that you forgot that? I live near Hollywood, and goddamnit I hear a lot of "No form, no TV/Movie appearance" from my friends in the industry. I've also worked on media post processing for a beta product I'm trying to pull out of mothballs from a few years ago - I think I'd have a basic framework of commonsense on what to film and not to film for testing my engine...

You're an idiot if you think that merely being in a place implies someone can use your image and perhaps encourage a crime.

I'm sorry, but this is clear cut - if the producers knew that someone had entered and shouldn't have been there, they could have cut out the five seconds of film. Really - a few seconds. Hell, they could have gotten hours more from another area anyways.

- Rather than being forced to show something she wasn't already showing like going from cleavage-only to nipples, she on her own showed part of the nipple, and the shirt pulling showed a bit more of the same body part. I'm thinking that may have added to questions about whether she did give nipple filming consent (not to be confused with shirt pulling consent).

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?

- The jury was to only rule on the filming/distribution, not the assault. The assault was never dealt with. The woman was known to her, but she never pressed charges or even got angry at the time. This probably was used against her if she tried to claim any trauma resulting from a criminal act.

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

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).

- The fact that she continued hamming it up for the camera and smiling a split second after does not look good for her. It makes it appear that she was ok with it being filmed and expected everything to carry on normally.

Once again, no contract and profit from a crime. I'd mighty like to pants you...

- It all boils down to whether she gave nipple filming permission. If the only nipple exposure was by assault, there might not have been any legal question, and she would have won.

Yes, and without a contract, we shall know only this: it may have been actual consent, but the fact that she was uncomfortable with the whole nine yards tells us that GGW should have cut that segment out - and they knew it.

I'm all for profit and filming in the land of the free, but I also know a little thing called commonsense - that is far more prevalent in a sober post production crew than a drunk woman.

There are any number of people here who are naively assuming that trial outcomes are ONLY based on the letter of the law. There are far more human aspects to the issue.

Bottom line: This broad rubbed the jury the wrong way.

Or the jury might have wanted to punish her for doing such a thing in the first place.

After all, we /never/ have juries who would rather punish the victim for setting up a situation to begin with. Stupid women wearing mini-skirts and walking on the street, just askin' to get a bit o' fun - we'll punish her for that.

Or in Muslim countries, that damn bitch shouldn't have attracted the attention of unrelated men and gotten raped - whip her! (Saudi Arabia )