Woman In "Girls Gone Wild" Video Awarded $60k (Didn't Have WRITTEN Permiss

[matcom]

<snip>

VIRGINIA BEACH — A jury on Wednesday ordered the company that produces the “Girls Gone Wild” videos to pay $60,150 for filming and using the image of a Virginia Beach woman without her written consent.

The jury ordered Mantra Films Inc. to pay $150 in compensatory damages and $60,000 in punitive damages.

The jury returned its verdict after deliberating for about two hours. The trial began Tuesday.

The California company travels the country to videotape young women exposing their breasts at events and venues such as Mardi Gras and spring break beach resorts.

“They needed a smack-down, and they got one,” said Kevin E. Martingayle, attorney for Debbie Aficial, 26. “Maybe they should stay in California from now on”

Aficial and a female friend attended a promotional event at Bar Norfolk in Waterside on Feb. 19, 2003. At the bar, members of Mantra Films asked Aficial and Aimee Davalle to go to a nearby location to participate in making a video.

In testimony this week, Aficial acknowledged giving her verbal permission to have her image used in the video. She did not expose herself but encouraged Davalle to participate and kissed Davalle on camera, according to testimony.

The video eventually was released under the title of “Girls Gone Wild: The Seized Video.” Davalle, who also is suing the company, exposed her breasts. Her image was used on the cover of the video.

Aficial said she was embarrassed and humiliated because of her appearance in the video. She said she did not know the video would receive worldwide distribution when, after drinking alcohol, she agreed to be a part of the production.

“I would never take my clothes off in front of people I didn’t know,” she said.

According to testimony, the company sold more than $1.3 million worth of the video. The company markets its videos on a Web site and in late-night cable television ads.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=88546&ran=168596

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

1. G.G.W. producers get a "needed smack-down," yet THIS man remains FREE...

...Lady Justice is TRULY blind.

[LynneSin]

2. Alcohol and Video Cameras - not a good combination

I appreciate that there is a market for these "Girls Gone Wild" video. But shouldn't there be some sort of limits on what they video tape when you know these people are specifically heading to bars and going after girls who are probably much less inhibited thanks to the alcohol in their system.

Hell, I know I've flashed my breasts enough times after copious amounts of booze and I'm sure any of us are a little more willing when toasted. But these video makers are predators going after girls who are trashed because they know these girls will be less inhibited and more willing.

If they want to make video tapes they need to do a breathilizer test before filming. If a girl is drunk, then they should not be using them for in their video

[ghostsofgiants]

3. Note to self:

Start hanging around with LynneSin when she drinks. :P

[sui generis]

5. I'm googling right now

who knew there were so many boobies in the world?!? :shrug: bajillions.

:evilgrin:

[sui generis]

4. I'm not sure what I think

it seems like alcohol is for adults and we should all be responsible for ourselves, but there are leaches out there who are no more legal waiting to club you over the head in a dark alley than they are waiting to club you over the head when you've had a few.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for these women though after comments like “Maybe they should stay in California from now on” coming from someone in Virginia Beach. Yes Virginia, no time is the right time to flash your boobies, unless you're a guy.

What if it was a guy flashing his weener? Would people still feel sorry for him?

[northzax]

14. there is a difference in perception by society

of men and women drinking. I remember having it drilled into my head that a girl who was drunk was not legally allowed to consent to sex, so it would be rape. However, the guy can consent while drunk. double standard. Girls are excused from doing stupid things while drinking, they're just being wild, guys are held to a higher standard.

For the record, this is not about rape, which is a horrific crime. It is about society's perception of girls as people who cannot be held responsible since they can't hold their liquor anyway. it's sexism.

[redqueen]

16. Men can consent while drunk?

What case determined that?

[northzax]

21. find me a single case

where a drunk male was raped and the rapist was convicted.

And yet I can find you hundreds where two people, both drunk, had sex and the male was accused of rape. I know of 15 from my college years alone. Some were certainly rape, some were drunk people screwing around.

again, this isn't about rape, it's about the antebellum attitude of society that doesn't think women can act like men have always acted.

[redqueen]

25. Find me a single case

where a drunk guy claimed he was raped.

That would prove your point.

This case doesn't excuse anyone from VIOLENT ASSAULTS because they were drunk... it excuses them from entering into legal agreements while drunk.

Bit of a difference there, don't you think?

[RPM]

35. this is about property rights - drunk men have lacked capacity n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

24. We had to attend numerous lectures and seminars

my freshman year of college saying just that. The administration attempted to drill into our heads that if you had sex with a girl after she had even one drink that you were raping her.

I always thought it was a ridiculous double-standard also.

[redqueen]

26. I don't see a double standard.

No one is stopping men who were raped while drunk from filing charges of rape. I'd like to know if any have had cases thrown out of court because they're male.

Find one and I'll join in with the outrage.

[northzax]

29. find me a school

that tells the female students "if you have sex with someone who's had a drink you are committing rape." that's what we were told, as men., the women were told 'if you have sex with someone after you have been drinking, it's rape'

I have never said anything about laws, it's about how society percieves it. I have been to my fair share of 'harrassment' workshops and ths like (every year, whole office gets 'recertified') some are good, most are bad. The bad ones paint women as victims only, just as the long overdue awareness about rape by acquaintences sometimes goes too far and removes any responsiblity from the woman. This is by no means universal, but when it happens, it is dehumanizing and demeaning to women, in my opinion.

[redqueen]

36. Tthose professors should get their heads out of their asses.

However, rhetoric is cheap.

What we need is a strong man to stand up for himself after he's been raped.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

32. Find me a DA who'd actually try to prosecute such a case

And I'll give you the names of lots of guys who've had sex while drunk and feel that they were taken advantage of by a woman.

I guarantee, however, that almost every DA in the country would laugh a man out of their office for presenting such a "case".

[redqueen]

37. They should file a class action suit, then.

I'm not kidding. If one perceives that they are being shortchanged, they should not just say "oh well" and take it.

Do we have any cases where DAs have thrown out these suits?

[northzax]

38. it's not a legal issue

it's a societal issue. or are you ignoring that part of what I keep saying?

[redqueen]

39. Rape is not a legal issue?

The baser parts of society only change when FORCED, by law.

[northzax]

40. wow, you got the one liners don't you?

hitting all the emotional buttons. of course rape is a legal issue. I have never said it wasn't, what I have said is that society treats men and women differently in terms of responsibility for making their own decsions. You haven't bothered to address that point at all. So kindly either do so, or stop using emotional-keywords to get people worked up so they can't discuss an issue. If, for whatever reason, a discussion of societal differences in how man and women are treated under the influence of alcohol is not a topic that you can discuss without waving the red cape, we can cease and desist right now, let me know.

[redqueen]

43. One liners?

What more response is needed? Do you really need me to plainly state to you that I recognize that point? (I thought was obvious, anyway. Guess not.) I know very well how society views it... and yes it sucks... but how do you change it?

Women didn't just one day read the papers and notice that Hey! Our husbands can't legally beat us anymore!... Society didn't just magically wake up to the fact that it's wrong... it had to be worked for. That work involves taking LEGAL action to rectify the wrongs where you can.

Emotional buttons my ass. You're the one getting your ire up over this. And you blame me for getting you worked up... nice... in a discussion wherein one taking responsibility for one's decisions is a topic... that's rich. I wasn't using "rape" as an "emotional keyword"... I'm calling it what it is.

I'm not waving a red cape... I'm simply saying that both sexes should be treated equally.

Honestly... I don't see why you're so worked up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

42. Do you have any idea what a class action lawsuit is?

I pulled this from one of the books in our office. (I work for a law firm.)

"The purported purpose of class action law suits is to give the common man the ability to take on the largest corporate or private entities (who can afford the very best legal services) and have a chance of redressing the wrong done by these entities. It is important to remember that even though the actual damage or cost to the indivdual class member may be small, the illicit gain to the corporate entity can be huge if done to hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of class members."

I don't see how a class action would apply in any way to this discussion.

[redqueen]

44. Yes, thanks.

This definition seems to want to contain it to private and corporate entities, however I thought they were used against governmental entities as well.

If men are attempting to have their rape cases heard, and DA's are unlawfully throwing them out of court, I figured a class action suit would allow all these men who were denied justice a chance to have their day in court.

[LynneSin]

22. Take into consideration the Tattoo Parlor

More and more Parlors require that their customers be sober when they make a decision about having a tattoo added to their body. The reason is simple - when we're drunk, we all make dumbass decisions. Tattoo Parlors do not want to be held responsible for inking someone trashed who wakes up in the morning and wonders what the hell they have done.

I think several states have even made this a law.

Personally, I think this should be for both sexes; however, the perception will always be the smaller girl being pressured by the larger man. But believe me, I've seen girls go after a guy because they knew he was drunk and could get him. And I've seen pregnancies come out of those decisions too!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

27. The tattoo thing is due to the fact that you bleed more while drunk

I think. Tattoos do draw blood, and a really drunk person will bleed quite a bit (or so I've heard from tattoo artists).

The drunk rule is primarily there so that the tattoo artist doesn't have to constantly keep wiping the blood off the area s/he's trying to ink.

[LynneSin]

30. I remember when Ocean City MD first allowed tattoo parlors in their city

they passed an ordinance that the customer has to be sober. Maybe it's for a blood reason but drunks getting tattoos is not uncommon although unfortunately too many wake-up and wonder what the hell they have done. Inking your body is a lifetime commitment and the customer should be sober making that decision

[Tyrone Slothrop]

31. Oh, I agree with you on that

I just think that the sobriety requirement is probably there for more practical reasons at a number of parlors.

[benburch]

6. Damn. And I MISSED it.

I knew we should have fed you some Ouzo in DC!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. So does this mean Jimmy Jazz is buying us drinks?

:evilgrin:

[SnowGoose]

8. “I would never take my clothes off in front of people I didn’t know,”

ummm.... but you kinda *did*, remember?

[Left Is Write]

10. Not according to the article.

It said she DIDN'T expose herself.

[SnowGoose]

11. Woops! Got my Aficial mixed up with my Davalle.

Happens all the time when I've been drinking too much... thanks for catching my error. Now put that camcorder away, ya smartypants.

[underpants]

9. Local radio jacka** tried to turn this into a "She wanted it"

rape type thing.

It does seem a bit odd but hey that is why they have trials. Lets not think that the producers couldn't afford lawyers now okay?

[johnnie]

12. Sorry for her, but who gives a shit if she was drunk?

I guess we can use the excuse for being drunk to get away with things now.

[Hugin]

17. Iraq? Sorry I was drunk.

You know how it goes... As long as I'm not driving.

[pnb]

13. She was embarrased?

Well, she should have thought of the before she consented. She just wanted some money as far as I'm concerned.

[Hugin]

15. “I would never take my clothes off in front of people I didn’t know"

Isn't that exactly what she did?

[Left Is Write]

34. No.

The article states she did not expose herself. (Her friend, who is also suing, did expoe herself.)

[redqueen]

18. Amazing how few read the article...

well, not really. Still... :eyes:

[johnnie]

19. I read the article

I just don't feel sorry for them.

[Mutley]

20. I couldn't be drunk enough to take off my clothes in front of a camera

[matcom]

23. me either

not again :D

[Mutley]

28. Again?!?

You're one of those girls aren't you? And here I thought you were a man!

[RPM]

33. that's all?

I'm kinda surprised...

[AngryAmish]

41. Folks, she will get nothing from this case

Her compensatory damages were $150. The punitive damages were $60,000. Our Supreme Court says that punitive damages that are many multiples of actual damages violates some constitutional provision (BMW v. Gore). $60,000 is 400x the actual damages. Cases vary, but she will be lucky not to get the award reduced down to $1-2,000. Her lawyer will keep the money for his expenses.

So, this woman gets drunk, is unhappy about being filmed while doing things she would not want her father to see, sues and gets nothing. This is hardly a win for her.