Sometimes I Don't Understand DUers

[THUNDER HANDS]

Here's two totally seperate threads in two totally different forums.

One about the women on the cover of 'Girls Gone Wild' :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=390981#391651

The other about Jessica Lynch and Hustler :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=212127&mesg_id=212127

There seem to be two totally different reactions. Regarding Jessica Lynch, it seems a lot of DUers were coming to her aid, bashing Larry Flynt for publishing them.

And then in the girls gone wild instance, Duers have absolutely NO sympathy for the woman on the cover whose image was used without her permission and who can't make any money off the deal.

So explain to me folks. Because I sure as hell don't understand....

How can it be shameful and wrong for Larry Flynt to uncover and purchase topless photos of a known celebrity (no matter the reason she's a celebrity) and it be perfectly arlight for some low-life smut video maker to tape record women on spring break showing off their boobs and then stick one of them on the cover and make millions - all with no royalties going to the "stars" of the movie.

I don't understand it at all.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. I dunno

I stand by my conviction that no one should profit from you without consent.


The footage and pictures are identical to me and I don't think it's fair to make money from other people's stupidity or misfortunes without them approving.

[eileen_d]

2. Well, I defended Lynch, and I have no love for the GGW folks

Is it the same people in both threads? I didn't post in the GGW one.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. not really

But both threads are almost universal in their (a) support for Lynch and (b) their distain of the GGW girls.

[La_Serpiente]

3. I didn't say nuttin'

[liberalmuse]

5. I think it's all wrong...

Two GI's are going to make a profit by exploiting Lynch. I think they should be severly reprimanded by the military for dishonoring a fellow soldier. You know people are going to be stupid and Puritanical about this--Americans need to grow up sexually and stop making a big deal out of boobies, nakedness and sex in general. Larry Flynt does what he does--we know he doesn't have any honor. As far as GGW, I feel the same way. One shouldn't exploit drunken females.

[felonious thunk]

6. Different kinds of exploitation

Lynch is being exploited for political gain. She was serving in the military and I tend to doubt that she had much interest in becoming a "celebrity", but it was thrust upon her because the Bush people recognized the value of her exploitation. She would never have had photos published if she wasn't exploited by the Pentagon.

The Girls Gone Wild girls got drunk and made asses of themselves. They are being exploited to sell stupid videos to horny young men. It's disturbing, sure, but they could have always kept their shirts on when they saw the camera. Or stopped after the fourth Natty Light. There's less sympathy for them because they were acting like idiots.

[bushisanidiot]

7. I'd Like To See Flynt Say Where The Topless Photos Came From

was lynch set-up to play the 'hero' roll from the beginning?

[maxanne]

8. it's all wrong

but I try to avoid those kinds of threads because I find the sexism here among the "enlightened" truly abhorrent.

[Deja Q]

9. Lynch is getting paid, I believe... the boozehounds aren't.. Worse,

If moviemaking is like still photography, they MUST have some sort of legaleze to make their spring chickens aware that their appearance is to be used for profit, that they will/won't get any money for doing it, and if it's okay to do so.

May the boozie's lawsuit win. And be more of them from others.

[MojoKrunch]

10. I've wondered about that.

Is there some sort of "implied consent" if someone points a camera at you, asks you to strip and then makes money off of it without giving you any?

I saw where the GGW guy is making quite a bit of money selling these tapes.

Mojo

[ProfessorGAC]

11. According to the Article In The Chi. Tribune. . .

. . .(either on Monday or Sunday), nobody in Girls Gone Wild ends up in the final cut until they sign the release form.

So, the girl on the video cover has no recourse because she signed the consent form. She says she thought she was signing the form to allow her to be shown in the video, but according to the article, there's no difference, legally, between being in the video and being on the cover of the video box.

Her objection appears to be that she's on the box cover. She already consented, in writing, to be in the video. That's why the disconnect.

In the Lynch case, she NEVER gave any consent to have her image distributed to the public for profit. But, by allowing herself to become a public figure, the whole block of law shifts in favor of commerce and the media. So, she might be without recourse, as well.
The Professor

[FlaGranny]

13. A good looking young woman I know

was boating out in the Atlantic. She was topless. She discovered a photo of herself in a magazine that must have been taken with a telephoto lens. Lawyer told her - no recourse. She didn't get a cent for the photo, because she was "in public."

[Padraig18]

12. If you're in public...

... and decide to do whatever damn fool thing it is you do, it's 'tough noogies' to you, if someone takes a photo or vid of it and publishes it. :shrug:

The issues in the 'GGW' vid case are a bit more complex, however. :)