|
Forums >
General Industry >
Ruling today, girl gone wild girl awarded 60,000 for use
I do not have the full ruling, look for it tomorrow. Virgina, I believe. One doller for each copied sold given to the 26 year old female. If someone has the ruling then post it please. Should be interesting. Jun 30 05 09:38 pm Link no model release? and on a completely seperate note, I used to work with the hostess of that show...she bartended at the same nightclub in chicago i did, and the last I heard from her, she was off to FLA to make the big bucks for spring break. Jun 30 05 09:40 pm Link Associated Press VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - The company that produces "Girls Gone Wild" - racy tapes of young women baring their breasts - was ordered to pay a woman $60,000 after a jury determined that filmmakers illegally used her image in a video. The punitive damages jurors awarded to 26-year-old Debbie Aficial represent $1 for each copy of "Girls Gone Wild: The Seized Video" that her attorney estimates Mantra Films sold last fall. "In isolation, $60,000 doesn't do anything," lawyer Kevin Martingayle said. "But it may establish a precedent for others to follow." Shepherd Wainger, an attorney for Santa Monica, Calif.-based Mantra Films, said he could not comment on the case. Martingayle is also representing Aimee Davalle in a separate case against the company. Her case is scheduled for Nov. 29. Both lawsuits stem from a February 2003 incident when according to testimony the two women attended a promotional event at a Norfolk bar, where they were approached by Mantra Films employees. Aficial agreed to go to a nearby location and film a video, encouraging Davalle to participate. Martingayle said neither had shown proof of age and therefore thought the footage would end up on the cutting room floor. But later, Aficial saw a DVD with a topless Davalle on the cover. The law at the heart of the case requires written consent to use someone's image in a commercial enterprise. Founded in 1997, Mantra has released 83 different titles and sold 4.5 million videos and DVDs in 2002, according to Hoover's, a business data firm in Austin, Texas. Jun 30 05 10:05 pm Link Posted by Lapis: yep... Jun 30 05 10:08 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by Lapis: yep... thankyou for posting it here. I had trouble with the link. Jun 30 05 10:30 pm Link Posted by marksora: I wonder what the terms of their release are... Jun 30 05 10:44 pm Link Score one for the good guys. Jul 01 05 12:21 am Link yes, this is actually quite happy news. Jul 01 05 12:54 am Link Posted by XtremeArtists: Wait a second... Jul 01 05 10:46 am Link No matter how many fallacious conclusions you wish to draw from that article, photographing minors nude is not illegal. Nothing about this case implies otherwise. According to this story, the ruling was in regards to commercial use of a person's image without consent. I'm not sure what your DA actually told you, but you probably misinterprated it. Posted by John Paul: Jul 01 05 10:58 am Link Good. Ya ought not to be making money of people's image without their consent. Jul 01 05 11:01 am Link Posted by theda: Posted by John Paul: So, what you are implying is that it is perfectly o.k. to walk up to minors out on South Beach, or Daytona...and ask them to pull their cloths off for a video cameraman, and actually filming them without their cloths on, exposeing themselves to the camera recording the incident?? Jul 01 05 01:35 pm Link I would suggest that you check your facts on this. I have read the law for Fla. and it is not legal to photograph a minor nude. One also needs to check how a state defines Nude. As I remember in Fl that would include a nipple showing through a wet shirt or too much cheek. This issue is much to important not to check with a lawyer. Serious jail time is involved as well as the end of your career as a photographer and the possible added crime of being a sex offender. With all due respect to the wisdom of those on this forum, I would urge every photographer to get the facts from either the Atty. Gen. office of the state in which you are shooting or from a lawyer who knows this area of law. The current climate of this country does not tolerate anything that comes close to child abuse, and for many nudes of minors is just that, child abuse. LEARN THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH YOU ARE SHOOTING FROM COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL. Jul 01 05 02:06 pm Link Posted by John Paul: If the images are non-sexual in nature, then yes, it is legal. I really doubt you've explained the situation accurately to the police you spoke to or properly understood their answer. Jul 01 05 02:16 pm Link A measly 60 thousand bucks? That guy's gotta be laughing his head off. He'll make more than that when his infomercial airs tonight on Spike TV. And of course he'll probably have his lawyers appeal this until the end of the decade. She'll be in her 40s before she sees a cent, i assure you. All legalities aside, any girl who gets loaded on spring break and lifts her shirt for the first GWC she sees deserves whatever happens to her if you ask me. When are we going to start insisting that young women be accountable for their own actions? Jul 01 05 02:35 pm Link Oh I did... I explained the context of the topic, the act, and what he would do if he saw that.. I even quoted your words to him.. He was interested in seeing the site too.. ;-) Hey, if you want to test that out,...by all means, go up to some kids on the beach with a video camera, and ask them to pull their bikini tops off, or drop down their one piece swimsuit tops down so they can expose their nipples to the camera, so you can video tape them.. and bring that to the DA and tell him that it is your right to do what ever it is you want to do as long as the kids aren't doing anything lewd.. ;-) That's essentially what they did, and what you are taking the position of.. JP Jul 01 05 04:19 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: LOL!! I agree... I think she might have been out to make a few bucks.. Jul 01 05 04:22 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Oh so very true. But we photogs/videographers take the heat for "taking advantage" of the poor, helpless girl who did things willingly of her own free will. Nevermind that her saying NO would have just kept it moving. Jul 01 05 04:29 pm Link Posted by John Paul: Is that my position? Again, you've missed the point. Girls Gone Wild can easily be contrued as lewd. However, the ruling in this matter was about COMMERICAL usage. The plaintiff was an adult (albeit a stupid one), so there was no issue of exploitation of a minor even approached in this case. Jul 01 05 06:07 pm Link Posted by theda: Posted by John Paul: Is that my position? Again, you've missed the point. Girls Gone Wild can easily be contrued as lewd. However, the ruling in this matter was about COMMERICAL usage. The plaintiff was an adult (albeit a stupid one), so there was no issue of exploitation of a minor even approached in this case. Theda... the point I was making was that there apparently was an issue (according to the story) that the producers never got proof of age. ...which is why I jacked the topic.. Jul 01 05 06:44 pm Link It's not complicated. Girls Gone Wild specifically could be construed as lewd because of it's presentation and target audience. Not every nude image of a minor is lewd, even if the manner in which the shots were taken in some way resembles GGW's method. It's not approaching a girl on the beach and asking her to expose herself in and of itself that makes the image lewd. In other words, it's not the 17 year old girl's nipple that makes GGW lewd; it's the screams of "show us where babies feed!" and faux lesbianism marketed to lonely men on late night TV that makes it lewd. According to the article, the lack of proof of age was the reason the woman assumed her images weren't going to be used or couldn't be used. You went on to conclude from that that nudes of minors were illegal (or so you stated). This is not the case. Jul 01 05 11:29 pm Link Ok... well,...perhaps I have a little learning to do.. I enjoyed this discussion.. JP Jul 01 05 11:33 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: This also applies when they're not intoxicated and working with professional photographers. There's entirely too much victim mentality out there and not enough personal responsibility. Jul 01 05 11:43 pm Link Posted by Herb Way: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: This also applies when they're not intoxicated and working with professional photographers. There's entirely too much victim mentality out there and not enough personal responsibility. Oh, I totally agree with that. Jul 02 05 10:44 am Link John Paul, You should look at the Case of Florida vs. Girls Gone Wild. They shot a video with a girl 14 years old bearing her breasts. No model release. Shot in a public place with tons of other girls. The police raided them, Arrested them, and the Courts ruled that Girls Gone Wild did not violate ANY Law http://www.courttv.com/people/2004/0310/wild_ap.html If that does not spell it out for you, nothing will. Meanwhile $60,000 ? That is an insult to the model I think, But then again, I think they will lose on appeal. There is a law in VA. (or was, it may have been removed since last I lived there) that prohibits the awarding of punitive damages if the plaintiff if partially liable. Regardless of the lack of release, I think on appeal they will try to make a case based on liability of the models, since the models knew (or should have known) that the company might use it within the video. I think where the company screwed up was putting it on the cover. That part was stupid. If it was in the video, and taken in a public place, GGW would have been fine, they already have won summary judgement on their spring break video against on "model". Jul 05 05 07:14 am Link They now run their business diffrently. If they host a GGW party at a bar, all patrons entering has to sign a release and armed with an ID, otherwise you're not getting in. They've pretty much locked down the loose ends these days. 60 grand to a girl ain't squat for these guys, unless EVERY girl that is in these things, that didn't get the opportunity to sign a release, sued them. Then, they would be in trouble.... But, they are also winning their appeals as well. It's going back to defining the context of "is"... Bill Clinton reffrence, anyone? Jul 05 05 07:26 pm Link The issue with Girls gone wild is two fold... First the event was not public so the fact that she was attending it showed that she was age, reason for not having a problem over the age thing (if she is even underage, she says she didn't provide the photographer ID thats all). I think we will find that the case was awarded on the fact that she was on the cover of the box, this changes the image from being a "coverage" image to being a "marketing" image. There is a lot of law about the use of images... A photograph from a high school soccer game that showed a players genitalia was privileged under the First Amendment because the public event was newsworthy. McNamara v. Freedom Newspapers Inc., 802 S.W.2d 901 Girls gone wild are news worthy events. and when held in public can be videoed under that law. Once you make the image a marketing image it all changes. When the 2nd half of this acse comes in, the other girl. we will know more about what the court found as guilt for GGW. No photography of naked childrenis not illegal (I find it wrong none the less). Think of all the stupid baby's sitting in the flower style, screen savers sold to housewives. Wrong I think so, Illegal... no... and remember most police don't know the law, thats why so many people are found not guilty... Jul 06 05 04:47 pm Link Jul 06 05 05:19 pm Link Posted by Weldphoto: Truer words were never spoke. Jul 06 05 10:40 pm Link this is very odd. strangers approach chics in a bar, and after brief conversation... these two chics go to an undisclosed location and shoot nude or half nude videos? funny. did this companies agents introduce themselves as agents of this adult oriented video production company? several details of this case are not made known in this thread. the general rule of thumb however, is that when recorded in places where a person has no right to privacy, such as walking down the street, said person is fair game. it is however illegal to set up a video device in the dressing room at nordstrom's, obviously because a person in that dressing room has every right to believe they are enjoying privacy. so that leaves me to question the fact of WHERE this video was made. it is nothing new that local d.a.'s office LOVE to target anyone in the adult market, trying to make it seem like "lil innocent a$$ sally was used and abused..." and in most cases that is... bullshit... Jul 09 05 08:54 am Link |
