Christopher Carter wrote:
"The plaintiff, Jessie Nizewitz, is a 28-year-old model whom viewers may know from the July 31 episode, nearly in a biblical sense: It featured a scene where she and her date wrestle naked on a beach, rendered tacky and salacious by a brief, uncensored shot of her crotch."

I bet she learned everything she knows about modeling from the forums.


http://www.avclub.com/article/dating-na … :1:Default

If I were the judge, I'd dismiss it, right after censuring the attorney for using the courts for a publicity stunt.

Nor-Cal Photography wrote:
Anyone know how can I become a contestant on the show?

Get a pair of bewbies and remove your dingdong, then a good makeup artist will complete the task. As long as no speaking involved, you can reach your stardom and have tens of thousands of fans.

Christopher Carter wrote:
Her 30 year old employed Jewish boyfriend was unhappy and left her after seeing the show.

My question is what did she expect?

It was obviously because everyone saw her bunghole.

Not because she was running around acting like a Spring Break '91 whore.

And why is the fact that he's employed important?  Aren't most people employed?

Nor-Cal Photography wrote:
Anyone know how can I become a contestant on the show?

I do. One of their casting people contacted me to see if I knew any adventurous models.

BodyPainter Rich wrote:

I do. One of their casting people contacted me to see if I knew any adventurous models.

I'm adventurous!!   

Oops, I'm not a model.   

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Would anybody have ever heard of this show, if it weren't for the lawsuit?

I smell a publicity rat

agreed.

GER Photography wrote:
What a stupid, stupid premis for a show. Jus seeing the ads was enough for me to say hell no, I'm not watching that crap!! Really, the world has gone to shit. F'n Kenite garbage.

There is a reason it's called... "The Boob Tube."

Omaroo wrote:
Same girl interviewed for this article?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=145788

.. I think so..

Good Egg Productions wrote:

It was obviously because everyone saw her bunghole.

Not because she was running around acting like a Spring Break '91 whore.

And why is the fact that he's employed important?  Aren't most people employed?

Wow.

Now casting: Men and Women (21+, nationwide) who are sick of the modern dating scene! If you are tired of internet dates (Tinder, Match.com, POF), and exhausted with people hiding behind their computers, their possessions, and their overly-photoshopped photos - come NAKED DATE with us on a tropical island, Adam and Eve style! This is is real and vulnerable as it gets. ALL NUDITY WILL BE BLURRED. Compensation is $1,000 plus an all expenses paid trip to a remote tropical island! Again, ALL NUDITY WILL BE BLURRED ON VH1. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to strip away all of the barriers that interfere with modern dating! #YOLO ****PLEASE MAKE A NOTE: ARE YOU OPEN TO UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS OF DATING??****

The bold was added by me, but the caps is all them.

And, yeah, they really included hashtagYOLO.

Art Silva wrote:
well now we know the show exists and who this naked woman is.

Publicity stunt at the expense of the court system, shame because it would be depressing to know that there are people that stupid as to willingly sign on to a show where you are completely naked doing naked stuff, get paid for it and then complain that a body part showed.

Because she got paid for blurred nudity, not full nudity.

Because there was an agreement, in writing, and that agreement was broken.

I'm really not seeing the logic you guys are using.

So, if a girl does an implied nude shoot, where you've agreed in writing that nothing will show, and you post a picture of her vag, it's her fault?

Nope.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I still have the casting blurb:

What the hell is the whole purpose of a show about naked dating if the nudity is blurred out? That's friggen pointless!

How stupid do they think people are? And by that I mean everyone from the producers up through the networks, the affiliates, and the sponsors as well, not to mention the participants and the public who are expected to swallow that codswallop.

And as for "implied nude" ... not much different. From my personal point of view it's either nude or it isn't.

Studio36

EDIT: You guys should be exposed to a bit of Brit TV, especially after the watershed.

K I C K H A M wrote:
Because she got paid for blurred nudity, not full nudity.

Because there was an agreement, in writing, and that agreement was broken.

I'm really not seeing the logic you guys are using.

So, if a girl does an implied nude shoot, where you've agreed in writing that nothing will show, and you post a picture of her vag, it's her fault?

Nope.

Many of us had not read the "agreement" or contract you posted. If that's the case then fine...
BUT on the other hand [devils advocate here], as in modeling if she is really concerned about a slip of the "blur" censorship even for a second, it would have been smart on her part to protect herself from those flash situations. Wrestling with her date WILL put her in compromising situations and can easily be avoided if she really wants.

It goes with the old saying, don't play in the fire if you don't want to get burned. I have a feeling the judge will make a minimal settlement on this one.

The whole premiss of the show is stupid when it is censored anyways... just wear bikinis for crying out loud and save on loads of grief.

studio36uk wrote:
What the hell is the whole purpose of a show about naked dating if the nudity is blurred out? That's friggen pointless!

How stupid do they think people are? And by that I mean everyone from the producers up through the networks, the affiliates, and the sponsors as well, not to mention the participants and the public who are expected to swallow that codswallop.

Studio36

This is reality television.  They're not concerned with that question.  The question, from which everything show-related is derived is, "How much money can we make?"

Art Silva wrote:
I have a feeling the judge will make a minimal settlement on this one.

A buck ninety-eight would be too much.

Studio36

Lumatic wrote:
This is reality television.  They're not concerned with that question.  The only question, from which everything show-related is derived, is "How much money can we make?"

Yup, and you know who they are making it off of.

And no it's "unreality" TV. Bread and circuses to keep people's minds of the more important stuff going on in the genuinely real world.

Studio36

Art Silva wrote:
well now we know the show exists and who this naked woman is.

Publicity stunt at the expense of the court system, shame because it would be depressing to know that there are people that stupid as to willingly sign on to a show where you are completely naked doing naked stuff, get paid for it and then complain that a body part showed.

Well, one could argue all day about the reasonableness of the damages she's seeking.

But... She's not complaining that the body-part-showed. She's claiming injury because it was widely published, when the contract explicitly said bits would be obscured.

It's exactly like photographs showing "implied" or limited exposure. Only on MM would photographers argue that she showed a little so the balance is fair game. You know, when it comes to partial nudity - it's all about the photographer's ethics and honesty - without those (or an attitude of show a little - balance is fair game to publish), I wouldn't want to be a model working with those people. Not to mention those people hurt everyone, because it makes it more difficult for legitimate photographers to get particular shots where the model is dependent upon the photographers honesty surrounding what can be published.

studio36uk wrote:

Yup, and you know who they are making it off of.

And no it's "unreality" TV.

Studio36

Yeah, I suppose it would be better to use quotation marks for the reality part.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
It's exactly like photographs showing "implied" or limited exposure. Only on MM would photographers argue that she showed a little so the balance is fair game. You know, when it comes to partial nudity - it's all about the photographer's ethics and honesty - without those (or an attitude of show a little - balance is fair game to publish), I wouldn't want to be a model working with those people.

There are a fair number here that wouldn't shoot a model that was that squeamish either.

Studio36

K I C K H A M wrote:

Because she got paid for blurred nudity, not full nudity.

Because there was an agreement, in writing, and that agreement was broken.

I'm really not seeing the logic you guys are using.

So, if a girl does an implied nude shoot, where you've agreed in writing that nothing will show, and you post a picture of her vag, it's her fault?

Nope.

I agree 100%. There was an agreement. The producers broke that agreement. Now they have to be held accountable.

studio36uk wrote:

There are a fair number here that wouldn't shoot a model that was that squeamish either.

Studio36

Yes, but there's a difference between being squeamish at the shoot and being squeamish about what's published. The first I'd likely walk away from too, because it effects the photography. But the latter, I adhere to all the time.

Lumatic wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Yup, and you know who they are making it off of.

And no it's "unreality" TV.

Studio36

Yeah, I suppose it would be better to use quotation marks for the reality part.

Yes, truth in adversing - they should really be calling it the "almost, but not quite, naked dating" show.  LOL

Studio36

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
There are a fair number here that wouldn't shoot a model that was that squeamish either.

Studio36

Yes, but there's a difference between being squeamish at the shoot and being squeamish about what's published. The first I'd likely walk away from too, because it effects the photography. But the latter, I adhere to all the time.

What you are describing there is the same as the expression "a little bit pregnant"

If you think I have no sympathy for the person, you'd be right, I don't.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

What you are describing there is the same as the expression "a little bit pregnant"

Studio36

So, you're in the camp who believes that a situation where the to-be-published concept is agreed upon to not contain [choose-a-body-part], but due to the spontaneous nature of the posing and the concept itself, those body parts are periodically captured on film; it's your position that in spite of the initial agreement, there exists every right to publish the out-of-scope shots.

studio36uk wrote:
Yes, truth in adversing - they should really be calling it the "almost, but not quite, naked dating" show.  LOL

Studio36

The series is produced by Lighthearted Entertainment, the production company behind reality series like Extreme Makeover and Are You The One?. Lighthearted president Howard Schultz explains, “We created this show based on marrying a provocative idea with a back-to-basics philosophy. With all the dating options in the world, what happens if you take one man and woman and strip them of all their pretenses?”
Source, emphasis mine.

Evidently, Mr. Schultz invested none of that money in a dictionary.

K I C K H A M wrote:
Because she got paid for blurred nudity, not full nudity.

Because there was an agreement, in writing, and that agreement was broken.

I'm really not seeing the logic you guys are using.

So, if a girl does an implied nude shoot, where you've agreed in writing that nothing will show, and you post a picture of her vag, it's her fault?

Nope.

Some sort of compensation for the accident, and given the FCC and all, it almost certainly was an accident, is fair.  My concern is with the supposed "damage to her reputation" from it.  There's nothing in actually seeing that she has normal human female parts that should impact her reputation in any way.