Because I read the Complaint that was filed with the Court and various industry articles and comments rather than just imagining that the bitch had it coming for agreeing to do a CineMax type show.
Her case is probably going to have a big effect on how nudity riders are written and handled in the future.
Why wouldn’t they undermine her case? That’s what they’re going to have to do in court. They probably tried to settle this out of court, and they were refused. So the countersuit is a way to get them to rethink this stupid case. The producers were damaged here, not her.
I never said, or even implied, any such thing, and I don’t think anyone else here has, either.
No. Why do you ask?
Of course they are going to try to undermine her case against them. How effective that undermining will be has yet to be determined. Greene still has to prove her charges against the production company, also.
How did you decide that it’s the producers who were damaged and not the actor? Do you have access to some insider information that hasn’t been released to the public?
PDF file -
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/Femma_Fatales_bc497183.pdf
I don’t see how the actor was damaged. She voluntarily took off her clothes. If she thought it was not a valid obligation she should have walked out with her clothes still on. I don’t know all the details though, if she did appear nude and finished shooting her part in the movie then I agree the producers were not damaged and they are just trying to make her think twice about suing them.
Seriously??? This thread is chock full of remarks of how this is all her fault for landing a part on a CineMax show. For instance:
*So her not knowing implies to me that she is either lying or the stupidest person on any set.
*
*If it’s legal to show titties in a movie, it should be legal to sign a contract to show your titties in a movie, and to expect that contract to be enforced.
*
Anyone who signed up for this, and says they didn’t know there was going to be a nude scene is either: a) retarded or b) a liar.
So her not knowing implies to me that she is either lying or the stupidest person on any set.
(bold and underline added)
Maybe something in Greene’s “Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial” complaint might fill in a few of the details for you?
PDF file -
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sit...s_bc497183.pdf
I think there’s confusion about the ‘had it coming’ concept. They aren’t saying she should be treated badly because she agreed to be in a Skinemax movie, that would be slut shaming. I think they’re saying that she should have known the terms of the contract and that she would be requested to appear nude, and implicitly she was not treated badly.
I was responding directly to your belief that everything she claims in her suit is true. NOBODY here has said that if all that is true she deserved what she got.
That link is broken.
In her legal complaint, Greene says that the contract was changed, multiple rewrites were made that would have had her perform in a manner that she would have objected to if she had been made aware of the rewrites/requests earlier, and she that she was subjected to improper suggestions.
The production company is saying that Greene did not live up to her contract with them.
The jury will now hear that True Crime LLC has a counter-suit against Greene. Who will the jury believe? Greene? True Crime LLC? The internet posters who admit they don’t know all the facts?
I’ll vote for the internet posters who don’t know all the facts. It’s what the jury may be composed of.
I found the original link at -
poke the Read the full complaint button.
The lawyers for Greene and the lawyers for True Crime, along with a few sassy comments by the judge, might undermine the juries right-to-remain-ignorant.
I feel that the inclusion of one of my posts in your list represents a severe misrepresentation of the argument I was making, and the context in which I was making it. The question I was answering was, “Should a contract requiring nudity and/or sexual activity be enforceable in a court of law.” I was not making any direct comment on the particulars of Ms. Green’s complaint, and I strongly resent your implication that I said (or think) anything even remotely comparable to “the bitch had it coming.”
Presumably you mean it should be voidable, rather than void, or else nobody could ever into a contract involving the display of the naked body to a roomful of technicians and actors.
Proposed public policy:
Nudity riders are not enforceable. If someone chickens out about their nudity contract at any point, they can walk. Their decision to walk is made public. It’s acceptable for contracts with nudity riders to be paid in full at the end of the shoot, and for the production company to consider the contract broken if the nudity is not completed per the contract, meaning the actor doesn’t get paid anything. The production company cannot sue for expenses incurred at that point.
I have no claims as to whether this policy is in place currently. However, I think that going forward, it might represent a fair balance of the interests of the nekkid actor and the production company, assigning reasonable risk to each party.
Not acceptable. Whatever they were going to pay her will have to be paid to another actress, plus there is the cost of the delay in production…which would be much more than the amount due the actress.
A contract that requires non-consensual nudity should be void.
A contract that requires nudity, and develops into a demand for non-consensual nudity, should be voidable. (Continuing my devil’s advocacy).