<B>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?!?!?!</B> But I don't think it particularly matters WHERE it ended up or how wide the distribution. The fact that she did it in public where she knew there were home camcorders means she reasonably should have known it would end up somewhere and that could be public. At that point, I think she's given up her right to privacy. Now, if the lawsuit was built on the "they-profited-on-my-likeness" concept, I could see some type of argument. But I don't think the "emotional damage" stuff has any weight. <B>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. </B> True 'dat.
Not saying that the company is right in any way. But the $ 5 mio. is ridiculous. And your analogies, with all due respect , suck. The first one was even worse, so let me address this one. The simple, but important difference is that she flashed her BOOBS in PUBLIC. Unless you, to make your analogy more fitting, meant consensual sex with a guy IN PUBLIC, your analogy sucks bigtime. And if she had had consensual sex with a guy in public, it would have been on TV (censored) as well, I believe, as something newsworthy in a way...
Sorry, just saw that Major pointed this out already. By the way, do you guys use the same computer? Sometimes it seems like you follow each other around through the fora .
The irony (to me, at least) is that this ruling would seem to mean that there is a larger expectation of privacy when you flash your breasts in public than one has for your school locker or your company email. This court will protect your right to flash your breasts in public and not be seen, but Law of the Land does not prevent employers from intercepting and reading your email. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has even ruled that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone conversations. Yet one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy when flashing one's breasts in public? Doesn't make much sense. Of course, the fact that it was a default judgement means everything. Had the company presented a defense, they likely would've won given the previous case law (or at least won on appeal, which they may still well do). As for the issue of controlling one's likeness, that's an open question. Is the video commercial? Well, yes... and no. The video itself is not an advertisement and would likely be seen as being noncommercial. But they used snippets of the video in the commercial to sell the video. Case law would seem to support the idea that the commercial use (using the video in advertisements) is incidental to the permitted uses and therefore allowed. A similar example would be as follows. I write an unauthorized biography of Jeff Balke called: Jeff Balke: An Unauthorized Biography. That book is protected noncommercial speech. Jeff could not sue me for violating his right to privacy. I could also promote my book through advertisements even though the title uses Jeff's name and I've got a big picture of him on the cover of the book and in the ad. So even though my ads are commercial speech, that commercial speech is incidental. I would think that the same rule would apply to these videos and the promotion thereof. I don't think this award will hold up on appeal.
Actually, it can be considered rape if a sober person has sex with a very drunk person. Very hard to convict on, but in the law (well, in Illinois and other states; don't know specifically about Texas). So, if the rape comparison is valid, then I'd say she definitely has a case: they sexually took advantage of her. If there are any lawyerly types around, can you tell me why the company wouldn't show up to their court date? Do they improve their position in any way by having a summary judgment against them? Plus, how hard is it to collect from the company?
Don't cheapen the experiences of people who actually have been raped by saying that a person who was videotaped voluntarily taking part in a wet t-shirt contest was raped. It isn't even close to the same thing.
mrpaige, please don't get me wrong, I'd never cheapen someone being raped by comparing them to this...I was merely criticizing the rant about responsibility.
I was commenting more on Juan's comment about the video producers sexually taking advantage of her and equating that to rape.
Here's another article on the subject: http://www.austin360.com/aas/metro/022802/28wildgirls.html I've bolded a few things I thought notable. Still can't figure out why Arco didn't try to defend itself. And, Paige, I don't think you should cheapen her experience by saying it is nothing like rape. It is a lot like rape in the ways I had described. And the things I bolded above (and not challenged by Arco who did not defend themselves) only strengthens that argument.
Yeah, but I made a tactical mistake in my first post, I don't want anyone to think I'm comparing the two...I just think it's a little too harsh to call this girl a drunk w****.
