Topless teen wins trivia game ban

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

[Bikers4Bush]

It doesn't matter where she's from it's what state the picture was taken in if it's a minor issue.

Her only compensation (if the minor thing is true) is that her image should be removed. Other than that she shouldn't get jack.

[Hodar]

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

Why? Because you want to see her 'punished'? We should all ignore the laws on the books because of your outrage that she should flash her boobs?

If you are at the beach, in your swimsuit (whether you are a bodybuilder, or a highly obese person), your exposure in public does not give anyone license to use your picture to sell Subway sandwitches, Weight Watcher, Gym memberships, back hair removal systems, or anything else. This is the law; and it exists to protect us from people who would use our images without our permission/compensation to promote their product.

I have provided rational comparisons why the law exists. I have provided Model Release forms, and at least one link to the actual law in California. I do not know what state this occurred in, perhaps I can provide a Texas State law link, if it is available on the internet. Other than being angry that a young woman would dare to expose a boob; and you want to punish her, what legal arguement do you have?

[Hodar]

Talent agencies are a regulated industry in Texas. Anyone who engages in the business of obtaining or attempting to obtain employment for actors or models who perform in motion picture, radio or television productions is acting as a talent agency. Talent agencies cannot legally operate in Texas without a Certificate of Registration, available from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). Among the requirements for registration is the posting of a $10,000.00 surety bond.

By law, talent agencies may not charge a registration fee or advance fee as a condition of registering an applicant.

Each of the talent agencies listed in the Texas Production Manual is registered with the TDLR.

Further Information
For detailed information on laws governing talent agencies in Texas, please contact:

Texas Talent Agency Program
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
(800) 803-9202 within Texas
(512) 463-6599 from outside Texas
customer.service@license.state.tx.us
www.license.state.tx.us

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/film/faq/laws_html#talent

[Bikers4Bush]

The only recourse that should be available to her is to have her image removed if she was truly a minor at the time. Other than that, as others have pointed out, she gave her permission to have her image used at the time and she should receive nothing.

[Bikers4Bush]

My legal arguement is that she A.) did this in a public place and B.) apparently gave her permission for her image to be used at the time.

Given those two things her only recourse should be the removal of her image if she was truly a minor at the time the images were captured.

[Hodar]

Other than that, as others have pointed out, she gave her permission to have her image used at the time and she should receive nothing.

But she was underage, so her permission meant nothing. If she approached a single male, and begged him to have sex with her; and she was 16; it's still Statuatory Rape. A Minor cannot give consent to a legally binding form. Her parents or legally appointed guardian would have to sign for her.

And although it's boring and short; here is the Texas law, I will post it in a second, but the link is here. It's a formatting nightmare.

[Hodar]

H.B. No. 1060




AN ACT

relating to prohibiting the promotion of certain improper
photographs or visual recordings; providing a penalty.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 21.15, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a)
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) [(1)] without the other person's consent;
and
(B) [(2)] with intent to arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) [(b)] An offense under this section is a state jail
felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2003.




______________________________ ______________________________

President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 1060 was passed by the House on April
3, 2003, by a non-record vote.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 1060 was passed by the Senate on May
28, 2003, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays 0.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate



APPROVED: _____________________

Date





_____________________

Governor

[Hodar]

My legal arguement is that she A.) did this in a public place and B.) apparently gave her permission for her image to be used at the time.

Depending upon the 'public place', state or county rules; bearing your breasts in public may or may not be an offence at all. For example, in Austin, TX women are free to walk around topless at will, legally. You see them at Zilker Park, Barton Springs, sunbathing in the Greenbelt. It's no big thing.

As a minor, she is INCAPBLE of giving permission. One would think that the mininum level of competence a company would show would be to verify that the 'goods' they are selling are of legal age. If they showed naked 13 year girls, who willingly posed; would you still feel that the girls were entitled to nothing? From the law's point of view, a minor is a minor; whether 13 or 17 yrs 27 days and 23 hours old (in Feb).

[Bikers4Bush]

But you can't hold the company she gave permission to accountable for her lie. All you can do is make them remove the image if she was truly underage.

[Bikers4Bush]

Like I said, if she was truly a minor I don't think she's entitled to anything other than having her image removed.

[iknoclst]

Fortunately for imperfect people everywhere, the law doesn't care what you think. She has recourse and she is entitled. She may be a moral midget in your opinion and she's certainly not too bright if she thought that nobody would ever record it (and put it on the net), but the company should not get away with profits based on an illegal act. You CAN hold them accountable, and I applaud her for doing it (if she goes for the non-release instead of the emotional damage course of action, that is - but then, who's to say the extent of the publicity hasn't taken its toll?).

Also, the way in which you make baseless assumptions is ridiculous. Did she give permission? Nobody has clarified for certain, so it's silly to crucify her several times over for supposedly lying when there's no proof of that.

Anyway, if someone takes a picture of you in private and uses it for monetary gain, do you think you should have no recourse other than cease and desist? It's the same thing...the picture was obtained and used illegally. The minutiae are just different. Whether you deserve the profit is up for debate and I don't really care if this girl gets any profits from her situation (as one of many girls, it gets fuzzy), but the company that was stupid enough to do it sure doesn't deserve them. And I would hope there's more protection of an individual's right to not be taken advantage of than there is for a company to take advantage to make profit.

Do I feel sorry for her? Just a little, because it went a lot farther than most would reasonably expect (with the 'net, that expectation may as well disappear now). She did something stupid and is paying for it. There's no reason that the others who did equally should get off scott-free though. It was probably a spur of the moment thing for her, no harm to anyone else, but their offense is so easily avoidable one may as well call it intentional, and it was motivated by greed and selfishness. Is it that hard to check an ID and ask for a sig? It's a pretty 'well, duhhh' thing to do if you're going to be selling nekkid pictures of them. I mean, it's the least you can do to cover your assets. Or would they not get as many uncompensated takers if their true intentions were known? That's my guess (which I will not present as fact unlike certain others), which is probably more likely than assuming the girl lied so she could get her picture in a video game, posted all over the internet, pretend she's emotionally damaged because every horny teenager or judgmental adult with a modem has seen her naked, and then sue for it.

Either way, if you think the company should profit from what, I guess, is more or less kiddie porn, then there's probably no hope in trying to elucidate what justice, hypocrisy, and corporate abuse are to you.

[Bikers4Bush]

You're quite the drama queen aren't you?

[Bikers4Bush]

And you're also a troll.

[Bikers4Bush]

iknoclst
Since Feb 4, 2005

Let me guess, the little tramp is your kid?