When controversial titles go wrong

#21 So you're saying... if you're gonna take your top off, you have to live with the consequences of that, whatever they may be... i see, fair enough, i guess. :)

Actually, I'm saying that if you take your top off, pose and give consent for people to use said pictures in a commercial venture, you have to live with the consequences. :)


All of this discussion made me curious, so I zipped over to their site. The "Meet the Babes" section which has the pictures and names of the girls (which is one of the things this girl complained about, the first names given are apparently real) featured has pictures (which were very obviously posed for) and mini-interviews (however shallow they may be). Not exactly a situation of random pictures taken on a beach, eh?

#22

Quote:She was in a public place, but the photos taken are explicitly for commercial use. This is not the same as being on TV or having your picture in the newspaper.

Did you think about that before you typed it? Tell you what, name ONE newspaper, TV station, or even news broadcast that is NOT commercial. That means they cannot derive profit from selling ads, selling papers, or selling time slots. As long as they are NOT making one penny off of the usage, then they qualify as NON-commercial. So get to it, name one for me.(please leave out the 700 club publications or any such type. Although you can say they are "Non-Profits" I can argue that they are still doing it to generate revenue and that "Non-Profit" is just another slick way of saying "jerks that don't pay their fair share of taxes".)

Quote:Think about it, what if you were nude in a public place for whatever reason... would you want someone to come take pictures of you without permission and then put it in a game and sell it commercially? Probably not.

This is not an issue about WHAT YOU WANT. It's an issue of what is LEGAL. And if you appear nude in public you GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS. Plain and simple. Argue all you want, when this case is finished, you'll see how wrong you are.

#23 Ken Paulson: Makes me wonder if the whole thing is a publicity stunt. Or if the girl really is dumb enough to think that she can get anything out of this... I dunno. All around it's just messed up culture. (McDonald's Coffee, caused by stupid person or someone wanting money... dad suing a Sonic (I think...) because hot liquid splashed his son from a fresh, hot onion ring... stupid people or people eager enough to look stupid just for money. Makes me SICK.)

#24 My guess is that she made a bad decision when partying and someone (relative, boyfriend, friend, whatever) saw her on the site or in ads. Now she has to cover it up and is going with the idea that "the best defense is a good offense". So the goal may not be so much to get money as it is to paint her as an innocent victim.

As much as I hate it, we live in a victim culture. If people want fame or fortune, maybe they should try *earning* it.

I'm not terribly impressed with The Guy Game, but from what I've seen so far they've done nothing worse than make a game of questionable taste. It shouldn't be banned, and they shouldn't be sued.

#25 The problem is that they have unlicensed underage nudity in the game.

The line isn't really commercial and non-commercial. It's between entertainment and journalism. The lines are often crossed (say with tabloids that push the journalistic liberties into the entertainment arena or corporations suing news organizations for including their logos), so it's anyone's guess where this could go. Mostly it depends on their local, county, and state laws.

But having unlicensed underage nudity in the game crosses larger legal lines.

#26 She will win the case because she was under age. Anyone under the age 18 cannot be held to a contract. They have published pictures of an under age girl, forget the fact that she consented which is also not valid, but now your talking child pornography laws. Oh yes, they are going to lose big and probably lose their business.

Always validate the persons age and who they are before doing anything.

#27

Quote:She will win the case because she was under age.

Some people just refuse to get it. WHAT will she win? Fame? Maybe. Fortune? Nadda. In all she'll get her 15 minutes and if she's really lucky she wont end up with public indecency charges or a counter suit.

Quote:Anyone under the age 18 cannot be held to a contract.

Duh!, who says they could be? Now tell us your expert opinion on her being liable for lying on a contract. Furthermore, who in the hell started this contract business. A release or consent form may be like a contract for legal interpretation, but it is NOT a contract. And if you don't think anyone under 18 can be held accountable for damages then I suggest you take your nearest minor outside and get them to throw some rocks through the neighbors windows and explain to the neighbor that since the kid is under 18 there is nothing they can do. See how far that arguement gets you.

Quote:They have published pictures of an under age girl,

Knowingly trafficing in child porn and making an honest or even stupid mistake are two totally different things. As long as the company is making every reasonable effort to correct the mistake the chances of formal charges or even a fine are VERY minimal.

Quote:Oh yes, they are going to lose big and probably lose their business.

I've got a $500.00 that I'll bet you right now that says you are flat out wrong, care to take that bet?

#28 Unfortunately, correcting the mistake is a costly process as it can be as extreme as a recall (not as likely) or patching code to reveal other, legal girls rather than her (most likely) while making sure that any future presses are without her. Both are costly, though the latter costs much less. Imposing a recall on the console versions may be a likely solution much like when the Tiger Woods game came out in '98 with the South Park Christmas Card attached.

But the company definitely has legal recourse against her. Really, they'll probably both end up losing or they'll settle for a consent if a pay-off is lower than alternatives.

Regardless, I'm sure the lawyers on both sides know more about this than I do.

#29 Been an interesting post/read so far, although it's starting to flare a bit!
I'm reasonably sure in most states that her parents/legal guardians are responsible for her actions, were she to be counter-sued for false statements, fraudulent claims, and/or frivolous lawsuit--assuming she's not 18 yet, in which case she would be liable.

#30

Quote:Some people just refuse to get it. WHAT will she win?

An injunction. I imagine that's what her family really wants out of the case.

#31 @Gonzo the clown

Quote:Did you think about that before you typed it? Tell you what, name ONE newspaper, TV station, or even news broadcast that is NOT commercial. That means they cannot derive profit from selling ads, selling papers, or selling time slots. As long as they are NOT making one penny off of the usage, then they qualify as NON-commercial. So get to it, name one for me.(please leave out the 700 club publications or any such type. Although you can say they are "Non-Profits" I can argue that they are still doing it to generate revenue and that "Non-Profit" is just another slick way of saying "jerks that don't pay their fair share of taxes".)

This is what I posted first, if you missed it:

"For any commercial use of photography (not generally for photojournalism) signed model releases are essential for pictures of people." (...doesn't matter if it's in a public place)

That was something written by a proffesional photographer, Peter Marshall who has published and taught photography since 1973, not me.

Anyway, my point was that there is a well known distinction between photojournalism vs commercial photography when it comes to legal issues regarding "public domain" as you put it earlier:

Quote:You also have to take into consideration that video and photo's taking IN PUBLIC are legal public domain...

Obviously newspapers and TV newsbroadcasts make profit off of ads. You are getting into the semantics of the word "commercial" which is entirely besides the point....

What I'm saying is, there is a difference between a general photojournalist who goes to a public place and takes some informational pictures for a newspaper, receives remuneration... and someone who goes and takes nude pictures of teenage girls (especially underage ones) without consent, even if it's in a public place, and turns around and commercializes it in the form a game. I mean come on, Gonzo, you have to admit there is a very obvious difference. Just because I'm standing in a public place doesnt mean anyone can just come along and take my picture and make money off it. >:P


(...but if she did consent to it, then it's really her own damn fault, even if she was 17 at the time.)

#32 Look on the bright side, all the publicity this game is getting will pay the court loss :)

#33

Quote:An injunction. I imagine that's what her family really wants out of the case.

First off, as best I can tell, her family is not involved. She's 18 and capable of filing her own suit. Secondly, she's already got an injunction and she doesnt't need to sue to get it, the claim that she was 17 at the time is enough to get a court to stop distribution simply because child porn is against the law. Third, some of the comments lend to wanting more than just a "stoppage of use" and lean more to "Digging for gold the easy way". Such as...


"Other companies that were sued included Gathering of Developers Inc.,which designs, develops and markets video games; Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. and Microsoft Corp."


She didn't want the company to stop selling her image, she wants money from everyone in the chain for damages done to her.




"The lawsuit says the 17-year-old did not give a "valid or enforceable consent or release" for her photo to be used."


This tells me that she DID give permission to use her material, and possibly knowing quite well that her consent was not legal and she lied when giving it, but despite the fact that she may just flat out be trying to screw someone over for some quick bucks a lawyer will take the case because he thinks he can nullify her consent AND get damages awarded.



"The plaintiff has suffered humiliation, embarrassment and shame since the game has been released, according to the lawsuit."


You don't need to make a court understand how humiliated and embarrassed you are just to get underage photos yanked from a game or site, but you do need to specify those damages if you plan to stick a dollar amount to them in a civil suit.


IMO this is nothing more than a smart assed kids way of trying to extort money from multiple companies and the statements released so far in this case indicate that she may have planned all this from the start or at the least was very aware she was lying on a consent form. IMO she will be VERY lucky to get out of this without having to pay someone else for damages and without having charges filed against her. And the company that makes "The Guy Game" will most likely suffer no damage penalties other than possible fines for distribution of photos of a minor and beyond that they only lose time and money due to having to recall, fix, and replace the games that were released before the suit.


Here is some proof that the girl was COMPLETELY aware of the fact that she was nude and viewed in public


You be the judge, Embarrassed? or Happy?


Those right there will tell ANY judge that she deserves NOTHING in damages for her "Embarrassment and humiliation". She sure doesn't look to embarassed to go topless in front of hundreds of strangers, now does she?

#34 You know, if the girl lied about her age in any way, shouldn't she be facing some kind of criminal charges? PARTICULARLY if she accepted money for the appearance?

#35 Gonzo

Quote:IMO this is nothing more than a smart assed kids way of trying to extort money from multiple companies and the statements released so far in this case indicate that she may have planned all this from the start or at the least was very aware she was lying on a consent form.

The way we see the 'Law' working these days, it will probably be settled out of court, and she will recieve a settlement of $x as its cheaper than doing anything else. What is right, and what is expedient are two different things with differing costs.

I also question the use of saying this is a game of questionable taste. It may differ from many peoples idea of a good thing but I cant see anything inherently wrong with it any more than I would daily newspapers with girls baring their breasts every day like the Sun paper over this side of the pond. I just wouldnt waste my money on either of them personally.

Now those Japanese 'Rape' games on the other hand..... Those I do find to be in extremely poor taste, depicting a violent criminal act.

Hmmmmm, I'm effectively making a violent criminal game...... I hasten to add, its a shooting game, standard fare, no sex.

Notice I'm not touching upon the issue of it being legally underage porn. That does not seem to be in any way the intention of the title.

#36 Unfortunately, whether they intended to make child pornography or not doesn't come into the picture. The fact that they can't legally use her imagery without her consent, does. If they settle out of court for consent, then they'll be out a chunk of cash (but not have to worry about pulling the title, etc), and she will be out of any futute litigation against her for entering into a contract under fasle pretenses That's the most likely case scenario because it's easiest on both sides.

When I read through the reports on this, I had the exact same feeling as Gonzo about targeting companies for a big pay-off.

#37 I agree with you 100% gonzo

#38 What bothers me most is the first link Gonzo posted is the wording the article makes it sound like this image is from GTA? Do they even proof read what they write anymore.

Quote:Take Two, the publisher of Gran Theft Auto is being sued by a teenager whose topless photo made it into the game. She was 17 when the photo was taken (last year).

#39 Correct comma usage would have helped solve one of the problems in that sentence.

#40 Yeah, you're right Gonzo, except about the "public domain" thing... :P