ruling against spring break sites - GoFuckYourself.com

nxixnxo · 03-01-2002, 10:22 AM

http://www.austin360.com/aas/metro/0...wildgirls.html

Forest · 03-01-2002, 10:23 AM

OUCH!!!

amadman · 03-01-2002, 10:35 AM

THats bullshit!

Since when are people not resposable for thier actions when they get themselves drunk?

BradShaw · 03-01-2002, 10:35 AM

Default judgement, not like it sets any case law.

UnseenWorld · 03-01-2002, 10:39 AM

I'm with her. While "you don't have privacy when you're in public," I don't see why that should allow someone to profit from her likeness without so much as gettiing a release (which would have been of questionable legality if they intentionally got her drunk, as the court seems to have believed).

If we see no more of those things, I'd be quite happy. Unfortunately, the producers will probably move their work to Mexico, making it difficult for the girls to sue the producers in an American court, since the deed then will have happened in another jurisdiction. Since, I'm not an attorney, I'm not sure that would affect anything in a civil case, as long as both parties are US citizens.

Smegma · 03-01-2002, 10:49 AM

I don't understand why Arco Media Group never responded to the lawsuit. Did they think it so ridiculous that it wasn't worth the time?

Of course the court found in favor of the plaintiff, what else is the court going to do when the defendant doesn't seven show up to defend themselves?

Allison · 03-01-2002, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by amadman
THats bullshit!

Since when are people not resposable for thier actions when they get themselves drunk?

Here Here! I totally agree...

The chick wasn't humiliated.. just money hungry...

~~Alli

Forkbeard · 03-01-2002, 12:21 PM

Quote:

I don't understand why Arco Media Group never responded to the lawsuit. Did they think it so ridiculous that it wasn't worth the time?

Doubtful. Almost certainly Arco Media Group is judgment proof so they just don't care. Most likely they set up the corporation in such a way that it never has any assets the courts can get to. Shell corporations, shady proxy owners, bank accounts in the Channel Islands, it's not that tough if you are paranoid.

Watch E! -- the next such video will be sold by "Bayshore Media Group" and the commercial will be done in the same style and by the same announcer. It's MUCH easier to avoid liability by vanishing with your goodies than it is to avoid it by showing up for the fight -- even when, as here, the claim is LAME and the legal risk would appear slight.

Scootermuze · 03-01-2002, 12:36 PM

Let's not get things twisted here..
It wasn't a ruling against spring break sites..
It was a ruling against showing someone on a tv advertisement without their consent.

TheFLY · 03-01-2002, 01:56 PM

"Before she knew it, she was dead drunk," he said. "The people from Arco were egging her on to enter the wet T-shirt contest. The next thing she knew she was in front of a bunch of people with her shirt off."

Hahaha... yeah she was forced to do it... that's pretty funny. Insomnia? I bet she was up late every night watching E!

Hehe...

Well that should be a lesson to girls with low self-esteem not to go to Mexico and get shit-faced...

BV · 03-01-2002, 01:57 PM

i think its pretty slack of arco not to show up in court
makes them look bad

i wish the article would have touched on what e and arco's comments were.

At least the article finished off with a quote from another nonrelated incident:
"A lawyer for the video producers told The Associated Press that privacy protection does not extend to people who take their clothes off in public and especially not at large events where many people have video cameras."

that's how it is
for anything in public, not just wet t's
you are simply documenting a public event
like the news and a dozen or so popular mainstream tv shows like E, RealTV, etc, etc....

03-01-2002, 10:22 AM	#1
nxixnxo Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: miami,fl,usa Posts: 238	ruling against spring break sites http://www.austin360.com/aas/metro/0...wildgirls.html __________________ im out suckas

03-01-2002, 10:35 AM	#3
amadman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: padded room Posts: 738	THats bullshit! Since when are people not resposable for thier actions when they get themselves drunk? __________________ Affordable Quality Niche Content at <a href="http://reyko.com/in.php?ref=amadman">Reyko</a> Please submit your free and AVS sites <a href="http://xstash.com/sexpack/submit.html">here</a>

03-01-2002, 10:39 AM	#5
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	I'm with her. While "you don't have privacy when you're in public," I don't see why that should allow someone to profit from her likeness without so much as gettiing a release (which would have been of questionable legality if they intentionally got her drunk, as the court seems to have believed). If we see no more of those things, I'd be quite happy. Unfortunately, the producers will probably move their work to Mexico, making it difficult for the girls to sue the producers in an American court, since the deed then will have happened in another jurisdiction. Since, I'm not an attorney, I'm not sure that would affect anything in a civil case, as long as both parties are US citizens. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Last edited by UnseenWorld; 03-01-2002 at 10:41 AM..

03-01-2002, 10:49 AM	#6
Smegma Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,751	I don't understand why Arco Media Group never responded to the lawsuit. Did they think it so ridiculous that it wasn't worth the time? Of course the court found in favor of the plaintiff, what else is the court going to do when the defendant doesn't seven show up to defend themselves? __________________ <a href="http://www.jupiterhosting.com"><img src="http://www.jupiterhosting.com/banners/55x55.jupiter.gif" alt="" border="0" align=""></a>

03-01-2002, 10:23 AM	#2
Forest Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hollywood Fl. Posts: 8,988	OUCH!!!

03-01-2002, 10:35 AM	#4
BradShaw Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: KB's trailer Posts: 7,840	Default judgement, not like it sets any case law.

03-01-2002, 12:36 PM	#9
Scootermuze Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 4,513	Let's not get things twisted here.. It wasn't a ruling against spring break sites.. It was a ruling against showing someone on a tv advertisement without their consent.

03-01-2002, 01:56 PM	#10
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	"Before she knew it, she was dead drunk," he said. "The people from Arco were egging her on to enter the wet T-shirt contest. The next thing she knew she was in front of a bunch of people with her shirt off." Hahaha... yeah she was forced to do it... that's pretty funny. Insomnia? I bet she was up late every night watching E! Hehe... Well that should be a lesson to girls with low self-esteem not to go to Mexico and get shit-faced...

03-01-2002, 01:57 PM	#11
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	i think its pretty slack of arco not to show up in court makes them look bad i wish the article would have touched on what e and arco's comments were. At least the article finished off with a quote from another nonrelated incident: "A lawyer for the video producers told The Associated Press that privacy protection does not extend to people who take their clothes off in public and especially not at large events where many people have video cameras." that's how it is for anything in public, not just wet t's you are simply documenting a public event like the news and a dozen or so popular mainstream tv shows like E, RealTV, etc, etc....