<p>She said no on the film and she did not sign a consent form. Legally, they need her consent to use this particular footage and they didn’t have it. She may have assumed they were going to abide by the law and not distribute footage that they didn’t have consent for. It isn’t the plaintiff’s fault the GWW doesn’t feel obligated to follow consent laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t expect her to have taken action prior to knowing about the video.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The plaintiff assumed they didn’t want to get sued. Apparently they didn’t mind.</p>
<p>Sounds like Missouri makes it very easy to drink at 20 so long as a 21 y.o. buys it. </p>
<p>Interesting idea about consent being implied by failing to take steps afterwards to inform GGW NOT to use the tapes. There was the sign on the door saying those who enter consent to use of their image. I wonder what she thought it meant back then. Sort of hard to read any exceptions in that sign.</p>
<p>BTW–a rational juror could believe that “no, no” after her top was down was her recognition that the tape of her was subject to being used by GGW–like, "oh NO, they got me topless on tape and they can show it–why did I ever come in here, why was I working the camera–drat!</p>
<p>I imagine having the husband’s friend relate to her husband the fact that his wife was in the video topless had a lot to do with the suit. </p>
<p>Female: On, no honey, I NEVER thought that could happen. I’m not the kind of girl to go to a bar underage, drink, dance without a bra while flirting with the camera that I knew belonged to Girls Gone Wild with other girls intentionally flashing their stuff. Oh, I did didn’t I? Well, I didn’t consent to having them sell a tape with me topless in it.</p>
<p>Pea, Missouri law apparently does not require written consent. Additionally, we do not know what the lady did after the alleged sexual assault; if she continued dancing and/or “flirting with the camera” then her legal argument is shaky. Nonetheless, she should have taken immediate, concise action to prevent GGW from releasing the footage to the public. It seems GGW assumed the plaintiff implied consent from her actions before and after the alleged sexual assault.</p>
<p>I would also note that a lot is being made of the fact that she said “no” to requests that she flash. We don’t know when she said that, what the context was exactly, and what happened between then and the time that she was exposed.</p>
<p>Sounds like there was a chant to “flash um” and she said “no” while other girls said yes and someone pulled her top down which got her breasts on film. There is no indication the a GGW emloyee or agent pulled the top down. So much for negligence.</p>
<p>She sued GGW for negligence, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of her likeness.</p>
Just to note that the word “shortly” comes from Doe’s lawyer. We don’t know the actual sequence of events. GGW’s lawyer no doubt characterized the facts differently.</p>
<p>Look, if she continued dancing with her shirt off, the case would have gone away after it was made clear that express consent was not required in Missouri. Based on the jury foreman’s explanation, it seems clear that the jury found consent because she was flirting with the camera before someone else pulled her shirt down.</p>
<p>I am awfully suspicious of the notion that consent can be implied from the failure to contact GGW after the incident, especially if it was generally believed that GGW sought express consent (as, I think, it was and is).</p>
<p>All of this confirms a couple beliefs:</p>
<p>Taking a case to a jury decision is like playing Russian roulette, no matter how good your case is. It should never happen unless you have screwed up, or have nothing to lose.</p>
<p>In this case, both sides screwed up. GGW should NOT have used the footage – I’ll bet it has a policy against that. The plaintiff SHOULD have sent a letter to GGW the day after the incident telling them not to use footage of her. She also shouldn’t have been such a pig asking for $5 million, and she shouldn’t have turned down what I’ll bet was a decent (~$100,000) settlement offer.</p>
<p>And, of course, the abiding lesson here – If you are a young woman, and you are having fun and acting sexy in public, there are still plenty of people out there who think you deserve to be treated like a prostitute.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty sad lesson. I’m glad I don’t live among those people.</p>
<p>“Shortly” [timing], “no” [–meaning no, maybe or yes – like smiling, playing coy to get one of the other girls to cause it to happen to her to have an excuse – like being drunk] etc. Fact issues! </p>
<p>And that is why it is called an adversarial system. Each side gets to present its own case and the jury decides the disputed fact issues.</p>
<p>GGW convinced the jurors that the totality of the circumstances indicated that the woman was agreeable to this. So, if there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support that finding, GGW wins even on appeal.</p>
<p>Buy the tape? Don’t you imagine it’s back ordered now that Doe publicized it? It will go platinum or whatever its called in skin tapes/cd’s</p>
<p>Note that in the case GGW lost in Virginia, they only had to pay $60,000. The additional publicity was probably worth that much to them. They may not have offered much to settle this case.</p>
<p>I’ve been a jury forman and that statement was HIS opinion. A 90 minute deliberation may not have even involved much discussion. It took 15 minutes to go through the charge and jury instructions. Many of the panel members may refuse to explain or argue “their side.” </p>
<p>I thought I read that Missouri is a 9-3 verdict state for civil matters, so whatever convinced 4 jurors that GGW wasn’t liable sealed the deal against the plaintiff.</p>
<p>I agree that taking a case to a jury is always a very uncertain matter. I have no idea how anyone can know that they don’t live among people with this cultural based bias since this is not a subject that I have experienced comes up in everyday conversation.</p>
<p>I was surprised at the degree of cultural bias that the jurors showed in the panel I was on. Defense verdict, 10-2. Anti doctor, educated, wealthy and semitic. Jury instructions made no difference.</p>
<p>It makes you believe in settlement. $5 million was never going to happen. There were 20 seconds of the plaintiff on the tape according to one report.</p>
<p>I don’t know if there are any peculiarities specific to Missouri, but in general juries get to set the award amount, no matter what the plaintiff is asking. So the fact that they asked for $5 million would not have precluded a jury from finding for the plaintiff, and awarding, say, $10 thousand. (Every once in a while a lawyer ends up with a Pyrrhic victory – they litigate the hell out of a case, to go a jury – and win an award of $1) </p>
<p>But asking for an overly inflated amount can also backfire, in that it suggests to the jury that the plaintiff’s primary motivation is financial gain. </p>
<p>I’ve done enough jury trials to agree with 07Dad as to the vagaries of the process – but jurors very often get things right. In a case where there is a video, the video tells a story. If the plaintiff admits that she was “flirting” to the camera … it’s quite possible that her behavior on film told a different message than her words. </p>
<p>Plus, we don’t know how she came off in court testimony – there may have been inconsistencies between words and body language in the courtroom as well.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people believe that she “assumed the risk” when she was present for the filming. I don’t agree with that line of reasoning because it smacks of the argument that women ask for bad things to happen to them when they participate in certain things or dress in a certain way. I hope the jury didn’t believe that, but it wouldn’t surprise if some did. </p>
<p>I have a relative who still believes that Nicole Brown Simpson deserved what she got because she was with a black man. I’d like to think he’s the only one in the world who thinks this, but sadly, I doubt he is.</p>
<p>It’s impossible to justify what happened to her but she did increase her overall risk. She attended a party filled with alcohol-fueled individuals hosted by a company known for selling soft porn. Men and women do not ask for bad things to happen to them when they dress a certain way or participate in certain activities but they certainly increase the risk of catching trouble when they decide to do these things.</p>
<p>Of course she put herself in this situation. But what constitutes a reasonable expectation for what would happen once she was there? It was reasonable to think she would be filmed, it was reasonable to think she would be asked to take her shirt off, it was reasonable to think that her shirt would remain on unless she chose to remove it.</p>
<p>It is not reasonable to think that someone else might remove it, it was not reasonable to think that if she said no on film and declined to sign a release that the footage would be used anyway.</p>
<p>07DAD- You seem to be making a big deal of the not wearing a bra thing. It’s actually not that uncommon. I am 19 and I often wear shirts that have so-called built in bras. It’s not that unusual and it doesn’t mean you’re anymore willing to show your boobs.</p>
<p>If she didn’t want to be filmed nude or partially nude, she did a number of stupid things:</p>
<p>1) Spend time in a bar that had Girls Gone Wild filming an event at</p>
<p>2) Not go to this bar with a trusted friend</p>
<p>3) Get drunk at the bar (I am assuming this one)</p>
<p>4) Find the filmographer and dance in front of the camera</p>
<p>5) Wear an outfit that could allow her top to be pulled down or off</p>
<p>6) Not contact the police afterwards after the event happened</p>
<p>Consider these scenarios:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>I ride my bike and never lock it when at class or when outside at the dorm. Do you have much sympathy for me when it is stolen? Should I sue the University and demand damages for the pain and suffering caused by my stolen bike?</p></li>
<li><p>A couple days ago, I was mugged while walking around by myself on the streets of South Bronx, NY at night. I was half way through counting the $1000 cash I had in my pocket when somebody held me at gunpoint. I think I’ll sue the city for not keeping the streets safer.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>No. If she knew, “Hey, I have decided I am not going to take my top off tonight”, that is the PERFECT reason to believe that her top would stay on–since ONLY SHE has the right to pull it off. Just like if she’d been walking around in public, or in a club, or in a nudist colony, she would reasonably expect that no one is going to force her clothes off while filming her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me with this? Would it also have been her fault if someone ripped her skirt and undies off, since she wasn’t wearing a chastity belt? Oops, excuse me–I see some male swimmers in trunks and female swimmers in bikinis over there, so I’m off to rip off their clothes. I’m sure I won’t get in trouble–they wouldn’t be wearing something so revealing if they didn’t want to go naked in public.</p>
<p>If you don’t lock your bike, it might be stolen. But whatever your imprudence, stealing is still a crime. If someone steals your bike and then gets caught, he cannot offer “Well the bike wasn’t locked” as a defense. Your imprudence does not take any blame from him; he is still a thief and should be charged with a crime.</p>
<p>Similarly, women who don’t want to appear in risque films would do well to stay away from places where Girls Gone Wild is filming. But whatever their imprudence, if they don’t consent to being filmed, their image should not be sold by Girls Gone Wild. No means no.</p>
<p>Each state has the right to decide the laws with regard to this area. Maybe she’ll go to her state legislator and he/she will sponsor the “Girls Gone Wild Privacy Act” that requires written consent. I doubt she’ll want to put her name on it.</p>