Girls Gone Wild Wins Lawsuit - Press Release
 

This is a press release, not a news story, so I can legally post the whole thing! :)

Press Release

SOURCE: Mantra Entertainment

'Girls Gone Wild' Producer Wins Lawsuit

Judge officially dismisses case stating, '... when you expose your body on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going to be shown all over the place.'

LOS ANGELES, June 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The producers of the "Girls Gone Wild" videotapes announced today that they have won a court battle in Louisiana. The court recognized that women publicly displaying their breasts allow for the following: no expectation of privacy, consent to being filmed, and that the producers may freely sell the videos. After more than ten months of litigation, the dismissal became final this week when the plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the decision.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2001 by three women suing as Jane Does, alleged that that the "Girls Gone Wild" producers invaded their privacy by illegally filming them exposing their breasts at Mardi Gras in February 1999 and using their images without permission. In addition, the women also claimed that the videotapes were being sold without their consent and payment to them. The three women were seeking unspecified monetary damages and a share of all profits from "Girls Gone Wild" video sales, along with an injunction to prevent further sales and distribution of the videos.

The "Girls Gone Wild" producers, and other defendants named in the action, requested a dismissal from the Court. Following a New Orleans hearing, Judge C. Hunter King agreed that the action should be dismissed. Judge King made the following comments about the case:


-- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during
Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which
they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out,
whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those
photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or
not it went nationally or locally or household to household."

-- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed,
Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the
French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras.
This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even
those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me
that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this
type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or
photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty
willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not
expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose
your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an
individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going
to be shown all over the place."

-- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a
little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of,
let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this,
prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will
be all over the country at some point, because people from all over
the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters."


In a similar lawsuit, pending in Tallahassee, Florida, a woman, Becky Lynn Gritzke, is suing the producers of "Girls Gone Wild." Gritzke bared her breasts at a Mardi Gras celebration and is now claiming that the producers invaded her privacy and used her image without permission while she was intoxicated. She also claims that her image from the video was used on the "Girls Gone Wild" cover and in television advertisements without her permission. Like the women in the Louisiana action, Gritzke seeks a monetary payment for being included in the videos sold by the "Girls Gone Wild" producers.

Ronald E. Guttman, counsel to the "Girls Gone Wild" producers stated, "The Constitutional and statutory protections which allow for the filming of events on public streets is a bar to Gritzke's claims. I believe that Judge King's analysis in the Louisiana action is indicative of how Gritzke's case ultimately will be decided."

Mantra Entertainment is the leading producer and distributor of live-action, reality-based programming in the U.S. Mantra was formed in 1997 when Joe Francis, a former studio producer, recognized the opportunity to develop reality-based, direct-to-consumer video titles that did not fit the traditional mold of studio-distributed product. Over the past five years, the company has established its reputation by creating such key franchises as Banned From Television and "Girls Gone Wild."

SOURCE: Mantra Entertainment

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020604/latu007_1.html

Nice read.

its interesting that nobody brought up the point that when your're drunk, you cannot legally give consenet to anything....

u shouldnt be drunk in public anyways lol at least calfornia law

when you're outside, in a public area, i don't think you have to give consent to being videotaped. that's one of the points. being drunk doesn't play in to it. guess the judge mentioned the consent thing to try to nullify those kinds of arguments just in case or somethin?

what what kind of fucking privacy do they expect when they are getting naked with a crowd of like 1000000 people watching you

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lol blondes.. jk :D

i love it!

Your statement just does not compute with my 57 year old mind.

The Judge should have fined them for being drunk in public and tell 'em to get the fuck out of his/her court. And on the
way out
hand 'em the bill for court cost.

Who made them get drunk.
Who made them go out on a public street DRUNK and make an ass of them self's.

Who is responsible for those ladies actions?
I guess your not responsible if you get drunk, go drive, run over someone... Tell it to the Judge.

one of a small handful of judges who head is not deep inside his ass

Indeed.

If they wanted privacy they should have kept their fucking shirts on properly.

Good release, totally agree with the ruling.

I think this is all good -- BUT give me a fucking break -- they shouldn't be allowed to show these girls on national TV and on box covers without some kind of written permission. I'm sure there are plenty of babes that would be willing to be the Girls Gone Wild "Boxcover Girl" in exchange for a tidy sum... These Girls Gone Wild guys MUST be making millions -- I'm sure they can afford a little chump change for a box cover girl w/o going behind her fucking back... if that is how they operate, then IMHO they have no class.

whehter they have class or not is not the issue though

Yeah but that's just plain evil... and what goes around comes around... especially for a company that is in the public eye as much as GGW.

Yeah.. so do I.

Uhhh.. I'm a little confused.. which part did you think was good?

I 100% agree:thumbsup

I think it's ok to have the girls on the video or to use this as content for a website -- as far as this court case is concerned -- there was no mention of either Jane Doe being used in the promo material...

But when you take the shit to Television -- I bet different rules will apply for this Florida case... They won't get away with using women to sell a product on national TV without permission... it's just bad business -- common sense.

The TV stations will catch heat -- and they will have to change their methods.

do they have proof of age for any of these chicks? i would think that that would be as important if not a bigger issue than the fact that their tits are being wanked to by thousands of anonymous porno'ers.

2257 only applies to certain types of activity, though, right? From what I have read, it doesn't necessarily apply to simple nudity.

They aren't having sex, they're flashing tits, I don't think 2257 applies.

However, if they start grabbing each other, which they probably do on the video, then it might apply.

I might be wrong about that.

I think the Fly has a good point. They have no right to expect privacy, but can't they expect to get paid for use of their likeness? It's an interesting question.

I think the judge made the right decision. However, if some guy took a picture of me walking down the road, and sold that picture for millions of dollars, you can bet I would probably come looking for a piece.

There must be some kind of law that says that you can't use my likeness to endorse or sell a product that I don't agree with -- without my permission.

What if you were watching TV and you saw your picture being used in a commercial for hair loss products... ??? Same thing.

you're kidding right? that would mean topless girls under 18 are fine, as long as it's just "innocent flashing." 2256 explicitly states anything sexual obviously as "sexually explicit conduct" as well as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" - after that it's subjective as to what defines sexually suggestive poses or portrayal of a sexual situation. i'd have to say that topless = nudity and *not* for art purposes, can't see how that would pass off as legal...