Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Scented Nectar]

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

Does not imply consent to further being filmed with her top off.

Due to the nature of the show, I'm pretty sure the signs would have said something like '...filming, including any toplessness or nudity'.

- 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).

She said no, that's all the matters. It doesn't matter if she was willing to show cleavage, she was not willing to show her entire breast and that is her right.

But if they determined that she was indeed willing to show her nipple (circle part of it may have been enough for this to be valid), then the shirt pulling would not have been seen as any more damaging than the parts she admits consenting to. Thing is though, I don't really know. None of us do. We don't have access to the unedited film and the complete court transcripts.

- 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.

Once again, digging for any reason to victim blame. She said no, her image was used illegally, End of Story.

It was used immorally and unethically, but not technically illegally. All the jury was deciding on was the legal facts, not the morals. The morals would have only come into play, had they determined that she had NOT legally consented to filming. Only at that point are they allowed to use morals and emotions to determine an appropriate compensation for the amount of damage done to her.

Contractual consent is different than sexual consent. With sex one can legally revoke consent at any point. It's possible that in ggw's case, consent starts and ends with entering and leaving the filming area.

- 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.

Because when you're drunk, that totes equals consent. /sarcasm

Bullshit. It doesn't matter how drunk a person is, if they haven't given consent, that's the end of it.

Did I say that? I think that ggw should be held to the same contractual standards as other companies regarding the consent of an intoxicated person. But apparently that was not what this case was about. Unfortunately they seem to be allowed to contract with drunk people, so the jury was likely not allowed to consider that aspect of it.

- 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.

She didn't, so why are you still arguing and victim blaming?

I'm not. I don't think she attracted the shirt pulling. I don't think she deserved it. I do think though, that she may be a money chaser, and that she doesn't seem to have had a legal leg to stand on.

---

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.

Apparently it means 'implied consent' legally. Not knowing the legal technicalities, I can't know much further about it, but it's legal. Obviously it's a law that should be looked at and improved since it's not clearcut enough, but that's how it seems to be right now.

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?

I don't know the details of what constitutes 'implied' consent vs what is probably 'explicit' consent. In fact, I am only going by second hand info that the signs and cordoning off is how ggw does their dancefloor filmings. For some, like when they approach women on the beach and talk them into some tit showing, someone said that they get them to verbally agree on camera. I don't know the details or whether what I read was even accurate.

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?

Possibly in the legal sense, if it was under the same contractual situation that ggw was operating under. In fact it sure sounds like it, since I was already consenting to showing my butt in the filming area. If however, I reported you for it being a crime, or if you had exposed something that I had not been already willing to show, maybe not. With crimes, there might be laws. I know that one can often not be allowed to profit off of one's own crimes, but in the case of others, there are news and documentary shows that can legally do it all the time. Someone wrote that ggw has described themselves as making documentaries.

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

Who said that anyone is pro-shirt-yanking? It is only not **legally** a crime, since it was not reported to the police, not even complained about or gotten angry about at the time, and the statute of limitations is likely long over.

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).

What does that have to do with this woman's girlfriend horsing around and yanking her top? She was not raped. We are not talking about a traumatic event like rape where the woman isn't believed.

Once again, no contract and profit from a crime.

Legally, an implicit contract. Legally, no crime. Morally? Doesn't matter, the jury must only determine the facts as they pertain to the legalities in question.

I'd mighty like to pants you...

Ok, but first I'd like to show it to you by my own volition so that you will have my implicit consent for while I remain in the filming area...