Model Sues Jewelry Company, Saying Ad Makes Her Look Lewd

FoxNews.com ^ | January 3, 2008 | AP

[ShadowDancer]

Model Sues Jewelry Company, Saying Ad Makes Her Look Lewd

Thursday, January 03, 2008

NEW YORK — A model who says she has worked hard to maintain a wholesome image has filed a $5 million lawsuit complaining that a jewelry company's video advertisement in which she writhes and moans looks pornographic.

The commercial, seen on the Internet in a clip entitled "Rock Her World," shows a woman wearing blue lacy lingerie and a diamond necklace while moaning and stroking her face and neck. It ends with the Web address for the jewelry company, Szul.com.

Click here to see the ad on YouTube.

The 37-year-old woman claims in her lawsuit that she did not "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure."

"Indeed, the music to the commercial is bump-and-grind burlesque type music, which further provides the advertisement with a decidedly pornographic look, feel and sound," states the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court.

The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, says in court papers she won the role in the commercial for Szul Jewelry Inc. in November. She says the idea was that an average guy would get a woman excited by putting a necklace on her.

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

Fake lawsuit. Publicity stunt by a company with a .com name.

It’s just scam by (Company Name).com to get their name and web address out there, and to get people to find a model rubbing herself to get onto YouTube and generate free advertising.

[ArmstedFragg]

Clearly a clerical mix up. When they mailed out the job descriptions they got the addresses reversed and sent the model the one for ‘nun’, and visa versa. Somewhere in America today, there’s a very happy nun.

[Lancey Howard]

A model who says she has worked hard to maintain a wholesome image

Oh yeah, I can tell from her gyrations on the bed in the ad that she was duped.

[Always Right]

[Always Right]

Guilty or not? LOL

Definitely not.

[NonValueAdded]

Ah, light dawns on marble head. From the full article: [emphasis added]

The plaintiff, who is a married graduate student in elementary education

No doubt she had no qualms during filming but after the ad was played, a classmate or teacher advised her that her chosen career was in deep, deep jeopardy.

[Doogle]

"I OD'd on that jewelry"

[ApplegateRanch]

...bimbo ...paid ...signed a release ...

Let's be fair.

If you had read the entire article, you would have noticed The plaintiff, who is a married graduate student in elementary education...

Therefore:

A) She is married, so any appearance of enjoyment of sex will only encourage her husband to make further unwanted demands upon her;

B) As a future teacher, she can't be expected to understand any of those concepts, terms, or big words.

C) She is probably PO'd after finding out the guy wasn't *really* giving her the necklace.

[VRWCmember]

The 37-year-old woman claims in her lawsuit that she did not "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure."

Then why did she tape the video?

[day10]

Is she hot?

[yhwhsman]

And all that over an ugly necklace to boot.

[MarkL]

If she didn't intend for her to act as though she was having an orgasm, I'd certainly like to know just what it was that she was doing on the tape.

"I'll have whatever she's having!"

Mark

[MarkL]

If a man gave me a diamond necklace——

I’d hop up out of bed and look out the window for four skeletons on horses. Come to think of it, Nostradamus predicted it!

Ron White once said that the DeBeres company nearly used truth in advertising... "Diamonds... Leave her speechless." What they really meant was "Diamonds... That'll shut her up... For a while."

Mark