Topless teen wins trivia game ban

The Register ^ | Wednesday 22nd December 2004 13:17 GMT | Tony Smith

[Hodar]

I'm with you. If you bare your breasts (or anything else) in public you have no right to complain.

So, by virtue of being in public you are indicating that your picture may be used for any purpose whatsoever? Hmmm, so you wouldn't mind if someone selling birth control, hair implant services, leg waxing, homosexual online dating, Jenny Craig or sun tan cream took a picture of you and place it for display for commercial gain?

Even amatuer photographers know of the requirements for obtaining permission to publish a photograph, especially when the picture is going into a commercial venture.

[Physicist]

What denomination?

C-notes.

[Bikers4Bush]

If she's flashing her rack in public and knows people are snapping pictures, or in this case video (which means she was basically posing for them), then no I don't think she has a right to bitch.

Afterall, she's not suing for use of her image. She's suing for emotional damages. You can't flash your sweater puppies in public and then claim emotional damage as a result of your own actions.

[Bikers4Bush]

"The teenager claims to have suffered humiliation, embarrassment and shame as a result of her alleged appearance in the game,"

So she wasn't humiliated, embarassed or shamed as a result of flashing for god knows who, it's because the images showed up in a game.

Color me unsympathetic.

[hiredhand]

What she did may, or may not involve alcohol. She may or may not have been topless.

What matters is that a company took pictures of her (yes, even in public) and used them to promote a commercial venture without her consent, or in the case of a minor the consent of a parent or guardian. This is illegal; and EVERY professional photographer knows this. Would you mind if a photographer took pictures of you at the beach, and plastered them on billboards selling .... Weight Watchers, or fake boobs, leg waxing, Tanning sprays, birth control, et. al.? Chances are you would be offended, whether you are a model or are overweight. The fact is that your image was used without your consent; and that is really all that matters.

What about surveilence cameras in public places that shoot video which ends up in television shows?....such as "COPS", and others? I think there's already been a fair amount of discussion with respect to things we do in public. I'm fairly certain that laws already in place have this entire issue adequately covered, and the young woman will win.

I think the "spin" here is that this is yet another "child" (17 year old AGAIN), and she was photographed half naked. If she weren't underaged, this wouldn't even be newsworthy. If she was flat chested, building a sandcastle with her siblings on a "family outing", it wouldn't be newsworthy. But this isn't the case. The girl was partying on the beach, getting naked....and had a simple lapse of judgment. It happens to us ALL.

I did a little digging around the net about this, and it seems that she was in fact photographed topless on a beach, during some sort of "social event"...frolicking is a pretty good description from what I read. She was looking for attention, and now she's got it.

I agree with you in principal, but I still think under the circumstances she should chalk this up to bad decision making. She should just drop the lawsuit. As it is, her pictures will end up plastered over umpteen different websites around the net....which is what she's trying to prevent.

I DO believe that the game producers should cease and desist, but I think even more that this young woman should think long and hard the next time she decides to undress around a bunch of guys who program games such as "The Guy Game"....or any guys for that matter.

The video game producers are made out to be the "badguys" here, but it started with a decision made by HER. I don't read anywhere where they took her shirt from her. She quite willingly removed it all by herself. ...and although this didn't give them the implicit "right" to make a financial gain on her photographs, none of us here are so stupid or naive to believe that an attractive 17 year old woman who undresses on the beach in the presence of men is going to go without consequences.

:-)

[Hodar]

The video game producers are made out to be the "badguys" here, but it started with a decision made by HER.

And she removed her clothes without any prompting? Now, whether she was prompted to remove her clothes or not isn't really important. What is important is that a company decided to blatantly disregard the laws and do what they thought would make them a fast buck, a fast buck at someone else's expense.

I do hope she sues, and I hope she cashes in big time. The laws of the land are not arbitrary, nor should they be selectively enforced. There is NO WAY that the software company can claim ignorance for using pictures of women in their game. Why? Because there are magazines full of model wannabe's who will pose naked for their game, but that costs money. This group of individuals instead chose to go take photographs of women who were topless in a public format, and use this for commercial gain.

I live in Austin, TX; and we have family parks where women may sunbathe, swim or walk around topless. (Zilker park, Barton Springs for example are in Austin city limits; Hippy Hollow is a few miles out of town). Yes, the first set of hooters does surprize you; but after a few minutes, it's really no big deal. I know men with larger breasts than some women. However, if I start shooting pictures for my own amusement, I may be asked to leave. However, if I shoot pictures and plaster them in magazines, games or billboards and I do not bother to follow the law and get 'releases'; I will be liable. That is the law; and no one is exempt.

[Hodar]

So she wasn't humiliated, embarassed or shamed as a result of flashing for god knows who, it's because the images showed up in a game.

So you've never done anything stupid, embarrassing or humiliating in public before? And simply by doing something stupid, embarrassing or humiliating in public is now considered 'free game' to anyone who wants to sell something?

Might I direct your attention here where you may do some home schooling? This is a FREE downloadable and printable legally binding form that EVERY photographer (Professional or Amateur) MUST have signed before submitting a picture for commercial gain. That is, unless you too wish to have yourself placed at risk in a court of law.

[Tempest]

I don't care as long as the stupid slut doesn't get a nickel from her frivilous lawsuit.

[Tempest]

She was a stupid spring break party girl and one of the willing participants int he crowd.

My understnading is that she had given her consent at the time as well.

[Tempest]

There's over 60 drunken bimbo's in the game. You may have the wrong bimbo there.

[hiredhand]

I AGREE!

But don't you have anything to say about the brainless 17 year old who got naked and "partied" on the beach?! The entire focus here is on the "law" which I agree with!

If she was underaged to begin with, should she have been half naked on the beach? Probably NOT. As I remember, there are rules regarding nudity on public nude beaches concerning minors.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and the game companies are probably going to get slammed. But the girl was having a good time, getting attention...and it was fine. But all of the sudden, somebody decides to make a fast buck from her impropriety and all of the sudden she's "emotionally damaged"? Why wasn't she "emotionally damaged" when the party was over?

She did something WRONG. The video game companies also did something WRONG.

There's probably a LOT of difference between the people you describe, and the sort of crowd this girl was with. Contrast any civilized social event with "spring break" and a bunch of teen agers ANYWHERE and there's simply no comparison.

The video game companies are going for "fast cash", but it seems to me that this young woman is now doing the exact same thing....claiming emotional damage and all sorts of other B.S.

[Hodar]

My understnading is that she had given her consent at the time as well.

That's why THESE FORMS exist. These forms are common knowledge in the photography hobby. Whether you are professional or amateur, these forms are required.

If you chose to publish without a signed form on record; you are inviting a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether she volunteered or not; no form, then you cannot legally use the picture for commercial gain. The fact that the company did not bother to get a legally binding form is grounds for her lawsuit. I think this young lady is going to cash in, and cash in big.

[Andyman]

. . . the game's developer, Austin-based Top Heavy Studios,. . .

I'm assuming they are named this because they have too many managers and not enough software engineers.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If you chose to publish without a signed form on record; you are inviting a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether she volunteered or not; no form, then you cannot legally use the picture for commercial gain. The fact that the company did not bother to get a legally binding form is grounds for her lawsuit. I think this young lady is going to cash in, and cash in big.

From the article:

"the footage of the plaintiff was taken when she was 17 years old, she claims. That not only renders the content illegal, but her status as a minor negates any consent she may have given to the game's developers to take and/or use the material."

Sounds to me like she signed a consent (and possibly lied about her age) and is now trying to cash in despite that.

[HenryLeeII]

Called The Guy Game, the software poses the player with a range of trivia questions. Answer them successfully and you're shown shots of young women cavorting on beaches, usually in a state of undress.

What a stupid concept! Why should I have to answer questions when I could just do a Google search and get the real (of-age and legal) stuff without having to answer questions?

[Leroy S. Mort]

from the Reuters version:

"Under state law, attorney Jim McClendon said, the girl could not legally consent to her appearance because she was a minor. She seeks monetary damages and a stop to game sales.
'We're just trying to nip it where it is now,' McClendon said."

You just can't make this stuff up.......

[Bikers4Bush]

She posed willingly. Now she can suffer the consequences.

[Hodar]

She posed willingly. Now she can suffer the consequences.

Still on this one, huh? So, why do you feel entitled to publish pictures of minor boobs? Just because you can see someone posing for a picture, does not, nor has it ever given you license to publish a picture commercially. Boobies, butt or otherwise. If she's posing, and smiling and waving to you, take as many pictures as you like, share them with your friends, or use them ... um, privately. But you can NOT sell them, or include them as a part of a commercial pacakge.

Again, this is the law, and this is also why we have these forms that are freely distributed, and legally binding. Now, if you want to punish this girl for flashing her breasts, you can call her names, you can call her Mommy and Daddy and tell on her, but you can NOT use her picture or likeness for commercial gain. Well, you can; but chances are that you may get sued and she will get rich. But, this is you call.

[Bikers4Bush]

I don't feel entitled. What I do feel is no sympathy for some little slut who flashed her cans in public while on spring break.

And no, I don't think she should have any recourse.

[Hodar]

She posed willingly. Now she can suffer the consequences.

And there's the little issue of this. Now, this is the California state law; I don't know what state she resides in, but I would venture to guess that most states have similar laws on the books.

Secondly, she is a minor; so even if she did sign a form, it's not binding as she is incapable of entering into a contractually binding agreement until she is 18. So, the lesson here is "before you use the picture of a hot chick to promote your company/product/service, you should KNOW that the legal stuff is all taken care of.