Posted on 12/23/2004 11:22:59 AM PST by RicocheT
Topless teen wins trivia game ban
A PC, PS2 and Xbox-based trivia game has been banned in the US after a teenager alleged that the title contains topless video pictures of her, used not only without her permission but filmed when she was a minor.
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.
The plaintiff, who remains unnamed, took the game's developer, Austin-based Top Heavy Studios, and its publisher, Take-Two subsidiary Gathering of Developers, to court on the back of her allegations, and this week was granted an temporary injunction banning the game from sale.
The teenager claims to have suffered humiliation, embarrassment and shame as a result of her alleged appearance in the game, which went on sale in the US in the summer, offering piccies of "over 60 smokin' coeds" and "real video of actual Spring Break hotties". Women "proudly show off their 'assets' for your personal enjoyment", runs the game's spiel.
Unfortunately, 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.
"The plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to attend college, develop her career and be active in her community and church," the lawsuit said. ®
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.
C-notes.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I don't care as long as the stupid slut doesn't get a nickel from her frivilous lawsuit.
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.
There's over 60 drunken bimbo's in the game. You may have the wrong bimbo there.
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.
I'm assuming they are named this because they have too many managers and not enough software engineers.
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.
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?
"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.......
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.