Well, I wouldn't say that it's no different, but I basically agree. She gave implied consent to have her image included in the film by dancing for the camera, but she did not give consent to have her shirt pulled down by someone else. I think that, legally, it is kind of a grey area, because she had already given implied consent and took no action to retract that consent once her bare nipple was exposed.
I wouldn't defend what GGW did/does, but the high priced lawyers they have on retainer do a mighty fine job of it, I'm sure. This is just a case of a jury being convinced by the case they were presented with. It doesn't make them right, but it is the way the system works.
I wouldn't defend what GGW did/does, but the high priced lawyers they have on retainer do a mighty fine job of it, I'm sure. This is just a case of a jury being convinced by the case they were presented with. It doesn't make them right, but it is the way the system works.
