Woman who bared breasts at Mardi Gras sues 'Girls Gone Wild' video makers The Associated Press 1/22/02 1:17 PM NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A woman who bared her breasts at Mardi Gras and got worldwide exposure has sued the producers of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos, claiming they invaded her privacy and used her image without permission. Becky Lynn Gritzke, a Florida State University business major, admits in her lawsuit that she was among the women who removed their tops at Mardi Gras last year in exchange for beads and trinkets. A month later, Gritzke said, she was surprised to find out that she not only appeared in the video series featuring women baring their bodies, but was also seen in the TV ad and Web site. Gritzke is seeking unspecified damages. Ronald E. Guttman, an attorney for MRA Holdings LLC, the video's producers, said there is no privacy protection for people who take their clothes off in public, especially at a big public event where many people have cameras. Guttman has asked a Florida court to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in September. Girls Gone Wild website - CAUTION: opening website may result in adult images being displayed on your computer --
Hey rockHEAD, I hear those videos are pretty wild and crazy... or so thats what a buddy of mine from work told me.
Do NOT order them. My roomate ordered the videos a while back and only requested the two videos that he saw on the T.V. add. Next thing you know he is recieving a video every month and being automatically charged for them on his chech/cash card(brilliant move to use his bank card...). He attempted to contact MRA via their customer service # but was never able to get through. He finally ended up having to cancel his card in order to cease the charges. GGW is a total scam!
I had a friend who had the same thing happen to him... except he was able to get through to cancel the videos. They automatically put subscribers on a "preview list" and send a new video every month, you're suppose to send it back or get charged! Do these things come on DVD?? rH
I hope this case is dismissed. It is a classic example of a completely useless, unfounded lawsuit that will just take up the courts time. "I did something stupid, but since you pointed it out, give me money!" Please, if you don't want people to see you naked, keep your clothes on in public.
I find the Desperate Dan Videos commercials to be quite funny. You gotta be desperate to allow some female to Janikowski you in the nads just to see her rack.
I'm not so sure this case is completely unfounded in a legal sense. You do have the right to control the use of your likeness. Somebody can't use your image in any form and attempt to make money with it with no written permission from you without compensating you. If the makers of this video failed to gain permission from these girls, then I believe that they are in the wrong. Karmically, this girl deserves any and all embarrassment this may have caused. Can you imagine her going in for a job interview and the interviewer recognizes her from the commercials?
There does seem to be some legal grounds to sue on. But at the same time, don't be stupid. If you don't want to be seen topless, then keep your shirt on. Girls know that there are tons of guys out there taking pictures and video taping Mardi Gras for that reason alone. A friend of mine in high school went to Galveston for Mardi Gras, flashed some guy and he took a picture, which ended up all over school that week. S**t happens. Being a girl, I still do not feel sorry for her. She should have been aware of the possibility of ending up on tape. Now she's playing the innocent victim. While I do believe there should be some waiver or form people should sign before appearing in these, or any other, type of video, I do not feel that this girl should be given any money for her claim.
Princess, I agree with you entirely except for one point: People made money off of her indiscretions. She should be entitled to a cut of the profits or at least a fee for her apearance. Don't get me wrong. I think people like this need to think about the consequences of their actions and take responsibility. I'm not even defending the Mardi Gras tradition of trading peeps of boobs for silly, plastic beads. I find that practice to be completely degrading. But that doesn't mean that sleaze like the producers of these tapes should be allowed to freely profit from these women's drunken revelries. p*rn stars get paid, so should these sluts.
I personally think it is a sad commentary that all these folks bring video and still cameras to Mardi Gras to exploit it. Isn't their memories and good times enough? Stuff like that is going to kill the whole spirit of the thing (I haven't been in 10 years or so, maybe it already has)--where only topless dancers or such soon will engage in the frolicking (probably will be paid to do so or have sponsors like Budweiser in addition) instead of the girl next door feeling uninhibitied and cutting loose in the greatest party of the Americas north of Rio. Just sad, man. Oh, by the way, her case seems awefully weak to me, but that ain't the larger point.
deepellumrocket, you are right about that. But how much money do you really think they made off of just that one girl? I still don't really think she deserves anything though. I do think it's a shame that people take cameras and exploit women like that, but the women who go there and do that are well aware of the risks. If you don't want to be exploited, then don't put yourself in that position.
First of all, stereotyping of these girls as sluts or strippers to be because they decided to flash someone at one of the craziest parties in the world is simply stupid. I'm sure some of your sisters, mothers, girlfriends, wives or close friends have done so at Mardi Gras or even just for the hell of it when they were young. Secondly, I don't think she has a strong case, but does have a point that these people should not be profiting from her likeness. She got naked and that was her choice, but it is still wrong for someone to take advantage of the situation and profit from it without her permission.
I don't think that all of these girls are "sluts or strippers." And I have had close friends of mine go to Mardi Gras and get caught on tape. And I've already said that I don't feel sorry for them. It's unfortunate, but if you don't want it to happen, don't do it. If you do it because you're drunk and don't know any better, don't get drunk.
So when Newsweek magazine put John Walker on the cover, they should've been required to pay Walker for the use of his image? Newsweek magazine is a for-profit venture and makes money off its' magazine sales (including said image of John Walker that week). Heck, the media could end up pulling Enron out of bankruptcy just through the fees they should be paying to use Ken Lay's photograph or Enron's logo. (Just sparking debate here. I know news programs have to meet different standards than entertainment or advertising). Here's a page with a nice discussion of the issue: http://www.publaw.com/rightpriv.html The bit about invading her privacy is probably bunk, though. What expectation of privacy can one have on a public street in front of thousands of people?
i don't remember what the law is on this sort of thing exactly...but i remember learning about it a little in school. what i do remember is that if it's at a public event, she has no right to later claim, "no one asked my permission." at least that's how i remember the law. if your likeness of cheering on the astros at an astros game is used by the ballclub for promotional purposes, they dont' have to get your permission...but i'm not sure if there's something different about that because of the boilerplate language on the back of the ticket.
