Woman wins $5 mln from 'Wild Party Girls' producers Reuters Mar 1 2002 7:18PM SAN MARCOS, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas woman who was videotaped taking off her top at a spring break party won a $5 million judgment from the producers of "Wild Party Girls" videos after she spotted herself in a TV ad for the tapes. Amber Kulhanek, a 22-year-old senior at Southwest Texas State University, sued Arco Media, the Florida-based producers of the risque videos made famous in late night TV ads. Kulhanek took action after her picture appeared in a TV advertisement for the videos broadcast on cable networks. "She never signed a consent to have anybody film it," said attorney David Sergi. "Quite frankly, she was too drunk to legally give a valid consent." The state district court in Hays County, Texas, entered the judgment this week after Arco failed to respond to Kulhanek's suit. Kulhanek must now try to collect the cash. In previous cases, courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and has upheld the right of companies to videotape the actions of women who bare their breasts, and more, at events like Mardi Gras. Kulhanek, an art student, was filmed in a bar in Matamoras, Mexico, in 2000. She was goaded, Sergi said, into taking part in a wet T- shirt contest that ended up with her shirt coming off completely. It occurred in 2000 while she was on spring break, the annual collegiate bacchanal, in nearby South Padre Island, Texas. Kulhanek saw herself in the advertisement, and developed insomnia that led to her dropping out of school. "The next thing she knew, all of her friends were giving her grief about it. Strangers were coming up to her and making rude and sexually graphic remarks, asking her to take off her clothes," Sergi said. Reuters/Variety Don't have a link yet.
Duh. If you don't want people taking pictures of it, don't do it. If you don't want to be so drunk as to lose your judgment and your faculties, then for goodness' sake slow down when you're drinking. What you do in private is your business, but what you do in public is everyone's business. Why can't anybody take responsibility for themselves anymore? Oh yes, when there might be $5 million in it for not taking responsibility...
Looks like I know where i'm going for spring break!! j/j But seriously, I went to Spring Break in Padre Island a few times in High school and college and the girls there get smashed. Every place has girls doing things ala Girls Gone Wild style. I just think its just the same theme in this country of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. If you do something dammit..confess to it! I'm so tired of the "blame" game. Then again, when asked about Bill Clinton's adulterous relationship, Hillary Clinton stated that he had a "estranged" relationship with his mother. What the $(*#* is that?? Life isn't peaches, there are rough areas that everyone goes through, but blaming others for your own lack of judgement is just wrong. But hell i'd take my shirt off for $5 million! If you have a jury stupid enough to rule in favor, that just reinforces my ideas that we are not forcing responsibility of actions onto people.
Girls who get date raped deserve it. I mean, they shouldn't be at a bar where someone might slip them a drug. They shouldn't be going out with men they don't know everything about. They shouldn't where somewhat revealing clothes. I can't believe this country has made it OK for a woman to blame the man for rape...take some responsibility.
The issue isn't about the girl taking off her top - it's about people making a profit using her "image" without her permission. If she had tried to sue some horny frat boy who took nude photos of her and then shared (without receiving any compensation) them with his buddies, she wouldn't have had a case. Nor would she have had a very good case if she sued them for any kind of "reputation"-related damages. But Arco used her image to make money and therefore they are liable. I wouldn't compare this to a rape, however.
$5 million doesn't matter, there's no way she'll ever see that much money. The judge was probably just pissed off that the defendants didn't even respond to the lawsuit.
<B>$5 million doesn't matter, there's no way she'll ever see that much money.</B> Depends if the dumbass company ever decides to get up and appeal the ruling... As for the rape comparison, the difference is that in the rape scenario, someone else forced her (either physically or through drugs) to do something against her will. She was not forced to do anything against her will here. Given that there is a limited, if any, right of privacy in a public place, I think a more accurate "sex" analogy would be a girl getting drunk, having sex with a guy by choice, then suing him for it.
A more fitting analogy would be a girl getting drunk, having consensual sex with a guy, it being taped, and promoted/sold all over the television...the latter two parts without her knowledge or consent. I wasn't really comparing this and rape, I was just responding to those who said that this girl should take sole responsibility, and I just thought that was ludicrous. In no one's wildest nightmares would they think the stupid things they do while drunk on spring break would end up on television for their family to see. She won't see $5 million, I'm guessing they'll settle it down. But I wish they would pay it...bastards.
Was she worried about privacy when she showed her BOOBS in public? Why is it now different? I mean she was in a PUBLIC place when she let em all hang out. This disgusts me, she should not get anything..... By the way, I went to S. Padre for 4 or 5 spring breaks....it is HIGHLY recommended. Boobs.....got to love em. DaDakota
I'm a drunk w****......when's my ship coming in? I am mixed up on this issue. Honestly, it kinda irks me that some amatuer with a video camera heads out to Louisiana or any spring break or Mardi Gras hotspot and videos these people, then sells the stuff, and makes a ton of money without the consent of the people being taped. HOWEVER, the law is the law, and there certainly has been a precedent set in cases like this prior. So I'd expect that the company that did the taping will appeal, and that girl will get little, if not ZERO money from them. I must say, however, that I like watching the ads for that Girls Gone Wild video. Does that make me a hypocrite???
So, if you're wife, DaDakota, went to New Orleans with the gals for Mardi Gras, and showed her boobs for some beads, and it ended up being on one of these tapes without her knowledge or consent, you'd have no problem with it? What a lucky gal.
Let's be blunt here: A girl goes on Spring Break and wants to look "cool" and/or have a good time. So she gets drunk. Once she gets drunk, she can be persuaded to flash herself. She does not plan on actually being one of those people in the "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Once she sees that she is, she's pretty embarrassed and upset. Then she - or someone - figures out that there is $5 million to be made if she's upset enough. So she makes sure she's really good and upset. Maybe she'll make the money (kind of ironic... probably better than most p*rn stars are making to show their boobs, and that's after they had all that expensive surgery). But, as embarrassed as she says she is, if you ever meet a girl named "Amber Kulhanek" you will remember her as the girl who got drunk and flashed her boobs, and then made front page news by being upset about it. So much for her privacy. In other words, I guess she's not too concerned about making sure no one finds out about this. As for our former president: he saw the opportunity for a blow job. He took it. His wife let him get away with it. You can always find somebody or something to blame, but this is how things are.
I don't understand how people can be upset over the ruling. I mean, this company is making millions and millions of dollars off of these girls. And they are advertising their product by way of printing this chick's face and cans on the box. Why shouldn't she get a cut? And I don't think that girls lifting up their shirts and flashing their ta-tas makes them whores. I went to Mardi Gras with some friends a couple of years ago, and it seemed like half the girls there were showing 'em for beads.
<B>In no one's wildest nightmares would they think the stupid things they do while drunk on spring break would end up on television for their family to see.</B> I'm not sure it's so unreasonable. If I go to a sporting event and do something ridiculous, ESPN can use my face on SportsCenter all they want to sell their product and gain viewers. If you go to spring break and do something ridiculous, when it's obvious there are people all over the place with little home camcorders, I don't think it should be surprising that people have videos of it and that eventually those videos will be made public at some point. Now, on the profit side of it, I can see that there might be an argument. However, I think the fact that its in public takes away a lot of the compensation rights. <B>A more fitting analogy would be a girl getting drunk, having consensual sex with a guy, it being taped, and promoted/sold all over the television...the latter two parts without her knowledge or consent. </B> Well, if you have sex in public, that's your choice. Now, if she did this in a hotel room, then she has that right to privacy and that's a different story. Moral of the Story: Don't do stupid things in public if you don't want them recorded.
Before these Girls Gone Wild tapes (I don't remember seeing these things until about a year ago), how in the world would you think it's reasonable to believe that doing something stupid like showing your t*** would end up on television?!?!?! Of course, you may know about DrunkCollegeGirlCenter that comes on a 24-hour station about Drunk College Girls that the rest of the world doesn't know about.
If I go to a sporting event and do something ridiculous, ESPN can use my face on SportsCenter all they want to sell their product and gain viewers. The difference of course is that you aren't the product on ESPN, the athletes are. I mean, people will pay money to buy tapes and look at sorority girls' breasts, but they're not going to pay a nickle to look at your mug for 2 hours.
