I watch a lot of TV late at night, because that’s when they show the good shows. Anyway, I see commercials for these video collections featuring what seems to be nothing but footage of College girls at Mardi Gras showing off their… ahem… I don’t know if I can say this online… errrr… I’ll say it backwards:
sboob.
Anyway, is this legal? I mean, the girls in the commercial don’t seem to be in any condition to sign waivers or other legal documents - It looks like some guys just dragged a camcorder around Mardi Gras, then cut it and are selling a video.
Probably not, I am not a lawyer, but I think that if one of those women saw themselves on that video they could sue. Even if they were in public, they still have to give consent, espesially if this guy is making money off them. They should at least be getting a share of the profits, since they are the product. makes sense to me anyways.
In between lots of flirting, ranting and general pontificating on the subject of the female breast, some semi-direct info may be found in the following threads:
My room mate has a copy of Girls Gone Wild on DVD…As far as I can tell, most of the women flashing, or doing various other deeds, appear to be sober…
At any rate, the company that produces and distributes the video is MRA Holdings LLC and they have all of the standard legal verbage on the video and at their website. The website also has a release form that you are required to sign and send in with your pictures, should you have the desire to be in one of their videos.
And yes, the video really does belong to my room mate.
I was under the impression that anything openly visible is fair game, and the photographer owns the rights to any pictures or video footage. A year or two ago (sorry, no cite, I couldn’t find it), a guy was sued for posting nude pictures of his ex girlfriend (taken while they were still dating) on a www site. He won, on the grounds that since he was the photographer, he owned the pictures and could therefore do whatever he wanted with them, and she had no recourse.
One of the girls works at a drug store near here. On Metcalf, if anyone’s interested. Hmm, actually, sdimbert, I guess you could drive over and ask her what they did.
Photographers have the legal right to take pictures of any public event. The subject of the picture is legally assumed to have surrendered their right to privacy by appearing in a public place. This is why you can take a picture of a city street and not have to worry about getting a release form from everyone on the street. It’s also the reason you can take pictures of celebrities without their permission as long as they are in a public place.
This legal right applies to any public place, including a bar or night club. And it applies even if the patrons are showing their “sboob”. Once you decide to get naked in public, you can’t sue for damages if somebody decides to film you even if they sell the film.
I’m not as sure about the case Joe Cool mentions. Without knowing the details, I’d say that the girlfriend should have won her case. Posing naked before her boyfriend is not considered the same as appearing in public. So unless she had given some form of consent, he should have been liable for damages for posting them.
First of all, Homer, how weird would it be for her if I walked into her place of business and said, “Hey, I saw you naked on TV last night!”
Secondly, most of the posts here seem to say that if anyone appears in public, they surrender their rights to be photographed. Does that mean if Jon Bon Jovi were here in KC, I could snap his pic and sell it?
What I am asking is, does the fact that I want to make money off of the image make any difference? I would imagine that Bon Jovi Management would have a problem with me selling shots of a face that, in effect, is their property.
That seems a little off too. I mean… say you just happened to catch a naked 12 yr old somewhere in public… or a murder in progress… could you market those too?
malkavia, you’re talking about slightly different situations.
Regarding the naked 12 yr old, if they’re not showing the child in a sexual manner, they might be okay. The problem is that if it isn’t your child (or grandchild, or some way related), and if you’re selling the pictures, it’s going to be easier to argue you’re selling them for sexual purpose. But otherwise, yeah, you can sell them.
Murder in progress, probably the same thing, though you might face accessory charges (because you allowed it to happen and then profited from it) or civil suits for not intervening.
Little Nemo - isn’t a bar or nightclub a private place? So any pictures taken in there could have publication prevented by the objection of the owner of the nightclub or private place?
Another hypothetical situation - I take a photograph of a street scene in New York city, and in my photograph we see (through an open window) Mr. Goldstein eating a matzo ball in his apartment. Can Mr. Goldstein object to the publication of my photograph?
Forget Mardi Gras and Bon Jovi concerts - ever try to take a picture inside McDonalds ? You’ll have security all over your @ss in no time !
I am beginning to dislike this idea of “public space” because really now, people in public do have a certain expectation of privacy in being anonymous. When you market a product made entirely of “public” images you are taking the person out of “the public” and specifically identifying them. I mean, Bon Jovi can post signs in a venue that one does not have the right to take pictures, but how can I do the same thing when I am “out in public” - there is no difference. Bon Jovi doesnt want people making money of his image and neither do I.
The owner of the business can restrict photography on his premises. But the patrons are assumed to be in a public place.
I once attended a bar which was having a wet t-shirt contest. A co-worker of mine was persuaded to join in. It soon evolved into a wet naked woman contest. About an hour into the event, the DJ announced that videos were being offered for sale. My friend was definitely unaware that she was being filmed prior to this, nor was she asked to sign any release or offered any royalties after the fact. (We offered to buy her a copy as a gift for her upcoming wedding but she declined with a gracious “I’ll kill every last one of you.”)
Lawyers live for questions like this. The issue here is whether Mr Goldstein could reasonably expect to not be observed. The answer is whatever a judge and jury decides.
If I recall correctly, there was a case in Florida of a couple who were making love on their back porch. Their neighbor videotaped them from his property. The subsequent court case devolved into arguments over the height and thickness of hedges, what lights were tuned on or off, the hour of the night, and other minutae. As I said above, there’s some huge gray areas in right to privacy issues and case law is continuosly changing.
The “murder in progress” photograph, I believe, would also have the added complication of being considered evidence. As to the naked 12 year old, it’s legal (so far as I know) to photograph them in public (nude beaches, for example), but safely marketing those photographs would probably prove to be too much of a headache to be worth it.
Thank you Little Nemo and Dijon Warlock. I should have guessed that, as in many cases, there is no straight “yes/no” answer.
As an aside, the US Supreme court recently decided in KYLLO v. UNITED STATES (certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit - No. 998508. Argued February 20, 2001 - Decided June 11, 2001) that using a thermal imaging device to “search” a house requires a warrant.
I’m not a lawyer, but I believe what matters is whether an “expectation of privacy” exists, as Lockfist and Little Nemo have already mentioned. That is, if you’re in a place where you know that any random pervert might wander by, then you don’t have any right to prevent someone from taking your picture and selling it to the highest bidder, even if your name is George W. Bush.
On the other hand, if you expect that nobody or only a select group of “approved” people can see you (such as when you’re taking a squeeze), your image cannot be recorded without your permission.