Woman in "Girls Gone Wild" video is awarded $60,150

[hoosier]

Woman in "Girls Gone Wild" video is awarded $60,150

A jury sided with the woman who says she appeared in "Girls Gone Wild" without written consent. Debbie Aficial 26, says she was embarrassed and humiliated because of her appearance in the video. She claims she didn't know the video would receive worldwide distribution when, after drinking alcohol, she agreed to be a part of the production. (Virginian-Pilot)

[Rudey]

She should move to Canada.

-Rudey
--You knew what you were doing lady

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
She should move to Canada.

-Rudey
--You knew what you were doing lady

You bet your arse she did.

[ZTABullwinkle]

I am only commenting on this because I live where this happened. Apparently she gave consent on FILM. There was also notices on the door to BAR Norfolk that there would be some filming in side the bar that night. In the state of Virginia, you must have written consent in these cases. Thus the win for her.

She was probably drinking too much, and let her inhibitions out the window. Not much of an excuse in my book.

[FHwku]

that's $30,075 per boob.

[Tom Earp]

What a friggen Crock of Cow Dung!

So she was drunk! Whose fault was that?

Sue happy ass wipes. Dont do the boob shot so you would not be in it!

Oh Mommy, I didnt really mean to do that!

[sugar and spice]

I would think this is pretty much a bullsh*t ruling except, as pointed out, she DIDN'T actually give her written permission, and using her image on camera was in fact illegal. If she had given her written permission while drunk, there's no way she would have won this case, and I would have agreed with that decision. But GGW is known for some employing pretty shady practices in order to get consent or get these images, and I would rather they they're held to the laws -- IMO, it's a slippery slope.

[ISUKappa]

Originally posted by FHwku
that's $30,075 per boob.

I hope she buys them something nice.

[PureGoldF2K1]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I would think this is pretty much a bullsh*t ruling except, as pointed out, she DIDN'T actually give her written permission, and using her image on camera was in fact illegal. If she had given her written permission while drunk, there's no way she would have won this case, and I would have agreed with that decision. But GGW is known for some employing pretty shady practices in order to get consent or get these images, and I would rather they they're held to the laws -- IMO, it's a slippery slope.

I totally agree with this. If the law was written consent, then a drunken verbal agreement is illegal, even if it was her fault for getting drunk and naked or whatever happened.