Posted on 09/29/2001 10:53:19 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin)
Poster girl sues makers of videos
By James L. Rosica
DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER
A Florida State University student is saying she unwittingly and unfairly became a girl gone wild.
The woman is suing the makers of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series, saying they videotaped her without her permission while she was topless on New Orleans' Bourbon Street at last year's Mardi Gras celebration.
The student, identified as B.G. to protect her privacy, did not know she was in the videos until friends told her they saw her in a television advertisement, her suit said. Other friends told her they saw her topless on a billboard for the video in Florence, Italy.
Her invasion-of-privacy suit, filed in Leon Circuit Civil Court last week, seeks damages of more than $15,000 and a court order banning further sales of any "Girls Gone Wild" videos in which she appears.
Advertisements for the public nudity series run often on television, and its Web site features titles such as "Mardi Gras Co-eds," "College Girls Exposed" and "Sexy Sorority Sweethearts."
Kelly Overstreet Johnson and Kelly O'Keefe of the Broad and Cassel law firm's Tallahassee office are representing the woman. The suit said the student was with her boyfriend, but the lawyers would not disclose any other information about her.
"She did not have any idea she was being filmed; these video cameras were hidden," Johnson said. Added O'Keefe: "They're really exploiting her, victimizing her."
Executives at MRA Holding, the parent company of distributor MRA Video in Hollywood, Calif., could not be reached Monday.
Legal experts said they felt mixed about the suit's merits.
Steve Gey, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, explained that case law has not recognized privacy claims in public places, such as on the street. But courts have recognized a right not to have one's image commercially exploited.
"I don't think the law is all that clear or coherent," Gey said.
Neville Johnson, a Los Angeles-based privacy and entertainment lawyer, also called it "a tough case." The woman intentionally bared herself in public, "but it's troublesome that now she's the unintentional 'poster girl,' if you will, for this thing," he said.
"She made a stupid move," Johnson said. "The question is: Does she have to pay for it for the rest of her life?"
Yep.
Sounds like it might be a perfect match for Ms B. G. at the time of her screen test. But I'd have to see the video to be certain.
******* I'll be the judge of that! Where's the picture?
Let's see...she bares her breasts in front of thousands of strangers and then is surprised when someone videotapes it....hmmm..
Would that be a BOUNCE...JIGGLE....?
Enquiring minds wish to know....
No. She should not have to pay for the rest of her life.
She should be given free videos in compensation.
I agree. She was out there topless in the middle of the street anyway; what's she b!tching about now... This case needs to get thrown out on its bimbo a$$.
Yeah dude, where's the pictorial suppliment?
The same for anyone's misfortune....(i.e. "Cops", "Amazing Videos", etc)
While I'm on the subject,...those damn un-solicited advertisements that come on my fax machine.
Hmmmmmm... If I had any money, I'd lay it differently... I've got this gut feeling about it--
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.