I think this all boils down to exactly what consent one gives when they are entering the GGW filming area and what "implied" consent technically means.
I've been searching the net for some form of GGW consent (a signed version or otherwise) and keep coming up empty. While browsing another site (with the same story) someone in the comments said he worked in a bar and the signage clearly states they can use footage from whatever happens in the designated area. Is this necessarily true? No, but it sounds pretty reasonable considering the legal outcome.
To reiterate my stance here, I am not trying to victim blame. She IS indeed a victim, but apparently to a crime that was committed against her by someone she still knows. Maybe I am trying to think this through too logically, but that makes no sense to me at all. GGW is a sleazy company, but they are a business trying to make money and if they are not found guilty here that should say something. Maybe that should steer folks to changing laws in their states (something I would be more than fine with by the way), but for now this makes sense to me legally.
I think Doe could have had a better shot had she not asked for an amount that far exceeds the profit made from the film she was in... just my two cents.
*side note* While I completely understand and respect everyone's right to their own opinions/comments/questions, is there really a need for name-calling if someone doesn't agree with you?
I've been searching the net for some form of GGW consent (a signed version or otherwise) and keep coming up empty. While browsing another site (with the same story) someone in the comments said he worked in a bar and the signage clearly states they can use footage from whatever happens in the designated area. Is this necessarily true? No, but it sounds pretty reasonable considering the legal outcome.
To reiterate my stance here, I am not trying to victim blame. She IS indeed a victim, but apparently to a crime that was committed against her by someone she still knows. Maybe I am trying to think this through too logically, but that makes no sense to me at all. GGW is a sleazy company, but they are a business trying to make money and if they are not found guilty here that should say something. Maybe that should steer folks to changing laws in their states (something I would be more than fine with by the way), but for now this makes sense to me legally.
I think Doe could have had a better shot had she not asked for an amount that far exceeds the profit made from the film she was in... just my two cents.
*side note* While I completely understand and respect everyone's right to their own opinions/comments/questions, is there really a need for name-calling if someone doesn't agree with you?
