Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Skeptisma]

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?

[In This Mind]

You may not film someone where they have the expectation of privacy without their consent.

I expect that when I get dressed in the morning, my clothing will remain on until such time as I choose to remove it. Beneath my clothes, I have the expectation of privacy. Since she did not expressly consent to having her nipples on film, the expectation of privacy law should have covered the issue.

What happened here is no different than a jerk with a camera and a mirror taking upskirt shots of women and posting them on the net, then arguing that they consented to it by wearing a skirt in a public location.

[Paul the Human]

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.

[Scented Nectar]

Signing a contract while not in the right mind voids it. Why should an implied oral contract be any different, considering the lesser nature of it compared to a full blown contract? Hint, it isn't.

Don't hint at me. I'm not on the jury. Remind Jane Doe's lawyer so he can bring that point up in court.

Since ggw does not appear to have been ordered to stop filming drunks, I have to assume they have some sort of legal way of doing so. And don't freak at me for this. I did not make these laws.

Punishing someone just because you think they are a "money chaser" when there are numerous faults and issues all over the place isn't just immoral, it is against the spirit of the Law.

She wasn't punished. She wasn't rewarded either. She must not have been able to prove that she had not consented to filming. By the way, I was not on the jury. I'm not sure if you realize that. My opinion of her as a money chaser was something the jury had no access to, even if they did give my opinion some sort of validity.

You miss the point - it is a very weak binding agreement.

I'm not missing your point. The judge and jury was missing your point. I would totally strengthen the contract requirements that ggw has to follow if I had my way.

Not found credible - sounds mighty like being not believed.

It's not the shirt pulling they didn't believe. It was whether she gave consent to film. I'm pretty sure that would have been specific to consent to show nipple. That is a credibility that would be fairly removed from whether the actual shirt pulling actually happened. Or maybe the credibility statement was in regards to any claim of hers that she suffered due to the shirt-pulled exposure but somehow not all the self-exposure she did. Who knows. I have a lot of maybes, but not many for sures.

That takes the fun out of it.

Yeah, sorry about that! I'm a bit of a killjoy sometimes.

[Eilonnwy]

In His Mind is spot on.

In some states in the U.S., exposing oneself in a public area is a criminal offense defined by state law as indecent exposure, public nudity, or sexual misconduct, etc. One notable exception is New York, where the Court of Appeals held in 1992 that the state constitution's equal protection provision allows women to go topless in any public area where men also have that right.[3] Whereas toplessness in itself may not be grounds for arrest, many of the women featured in Girls Gone Wild commit other acts in public that may be considered lewd and therefore culpable to criminal prosecution.

In response to lawsuits, GGW has argued that women who expose themselves in this manner have no expectation of privacy[4][dead link] The company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling - but not always.[5] In 2010 a Missouri women lost a lawsuit against Mantra Films when a jury found she gave "implied consent" even though her breasts were exposed against her will and she did not sign a consent form.[5]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Gone_...gal_status

So, obviously no written consent, the video clearly shows her saying no, so no verbal consent. It's pretty damn clear that the Jury got it 100% wrong.

This blog had good commentary on the ruling:

That is assault in my book. The Missouri jury disagrees. When Doe, now married with two little girls, learned of the video, she felt violated. She understandably felt that her reputation had been damaged and proceeded to sue the makers of the video for $5 million. The jury only took 90 minutes to find in favor of the company. In a brilliant display of victim-blaming, the jury foreman Patrick O'Brien had this to say afterwards: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Let me get this right ... through her "actions" of dancing with her friends, she gave "implied consent" to having her shirt ripped off and then having her attack filmed and distributed for profit by others? It makes a woman wary of going out a letting your hair down at all, if harmless dancing opens you up to that sort of treatment. In response to the foreman's comments, Jane Doe said, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

No means no. What else did the jury have to hear? No amount of flirtatious dancing negates that. This is like the classic she-was-asking-for-it rape defense. Sure, her words said "no," but her skirt/dancing/eyes were saying "yes."

Even Girls Gone Wild usual policy is to obtain written or verbal consent before the cameras start rolling. Clearly, Jane Doe never did. That the company has made money off of her assault — an estimated $1.5 million on that video — is disgusting.

I'll leave you all with Jane Doe's tearful remarks on verdict, since she certainly deserves to have the last word: "I am stunned that this company can get away with this. Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent."

As for people balking at the $5 mil lawsuit, what price would put on being assaulted and having that turn into a sexual exploitation for money? They make millions off of exploiting young drunk women, they would have deserved the hit to their wallet and maybe think twice about using footage where no consent was given. This verbal consent thing is also bullshit, usually it doesn't hold up in court unless it's recorded.

[Autumnlicious]

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.

Drunk people are certainly the model of memory, action and forethought.

It is a grey area of consent in contract law, leaning towards the black. It's a bad idea to loosen weak contracts in an already litigious society full of corporate entities given similar rights to individuals but with magnitudes more resources.

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.

Then the system is corrupt when a team of high priced lawyers can redefine contract law to a jaded audience. But then again, Hollywood has been terrorizing the entirety of file sharing community regardless of their actions for years.

I've always hated the ability for corporations to buy verdicts through legal teams, jurisdiction shopping and pre-settlement letters.

[Dotard]

I thought I said this, but reading back I see I didn't. So late as it maybe, I'm gonna say it now.

Now reasonably, it is obvious by your actions in public, that the goodwill or implied intention by your very actions imply that you wish the attention of all, including a camera crew.

I maintain the same holds true for the mini-skirted escalator rider. You calling it an 'exteme example' does not make it any less truthful.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

What. the. fuck?!?

She showed her boobs in public. Clearly she's guilty.

Unfortuantely, many justice systems around the world are still very sexist. It's a sad, sad fact but hopefully one that'll improve in time. We're still trying to equalize the vast difference in the way rich people and non-rich people are prosecuted in my country.

In any case, women involved in sex crimes are always victims unless there isn't a male predator. Then she's 'asking for it.'
There are never male victims in sex crimes.

When children are involved. Women always win. No matter what. Always.

You could be the wealthiest, most attentive dad ever, but unfortunately the crack whore mother who just landed a job at Stuckies qualifies to be able to care for her children because she's been sober according to her drug and alcohol tests and now she'll be able take a huge chunck of the man's paycheck for child support and maybe he'll be able to see them once per two weeks.

She could be the most upstanding citizen in the country, but if she were raped while wearing a revealing dress in a nice restraunt while trying to flirt with men (lets say she's single and trying to pick up a nice guy) but gets brutally raped and stabbed on the ride home from a creep she brushed off at the restraunt, then she was asking for it and ergo guilty of leading him on.

Men can't be raped by women because women don't have the 'equipment' and of course he was asking for it because he had an erection.

That's the common sense in the law. It's completely assinine.

[Dotard]

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

Yes it did.

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

Her image was not used illegally. Didn't the jury already decide that? If the jury said, and the judge apparently agreed, GGW did not do anything illegal, then they didn't do anything illegal.
NOW End of Story.

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

Right. She didn't win. Why are you still arguing and accusing folks of victim blaming when the courts have decided there was no "victim".

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Her image was not used illegally. Didn't the jury already decide that? If the jury said, and the judge apparently agreed, GGW did not do anything illegal, then they didn't do anything illegal.
NOW End of Story.

She didn't win, but that doesn't mean she isn't a victim of the crime she attempted to sue over. It simply means she lost the trial.

Still, I don't think the question over whether or not she had won the trial or not is important. She did loose, but that's not her failing so much as the justice system's failing to bring justice to the victim.