(August 3, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually it is, as her conduct was apparently sufficient to cause the jury to reject her argument. However that is largely irrelevant in a legal sense.You just contradicted yourself. The jury is wrong to reject a legal arguement based on something that has nothing to do with her legal arguement. It doesn't matter if the jury decided to throw out her case - it doesn't mean the jury didn't allow GGW to get away with a crime.
(August 3, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If Jane Doe were used on the box cover or DVD label a case could have been made for a "commercial use." As that obvious legal remedy was not used I assume that the short video we see is the totality of her involvement.
This isn't the case. It's illegal to put an actress in a movie without her consent for any length in time. It doesn't matter what kind of movie is being made - they're profitting on her likeness in a product that is a movie. They needed consent from her and they didnt' get it and used her image illegally.
Just because the jury didn't agree with this doesn't mean what GGW did was anything but illegal. They commited a crime but didnt' get convicted because of it because the jury didn't see it that way.
