snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Moot Court (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   'Dating Naked' contestant sues show after her privates air on TV (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=90222)

snopes 22 August 2014 08:55 PM

'Dating Naked' contestant sues show after her privates air on TV
 
Jessie Nizewitz is suing VH1 for $10 million, saying while she agreed to appear on the network's reality show "Dating Naked," she said the network promised to blur out her special lady parts.

They didn't.

http://www.mercurynews.com/entertain...r-her-privates

GenYus234 22 August 2014 09:14 PM

Nice unbiased article without a hint of agenda.

Another article I saw on this said that the plaintiff requested that Viacom remove all copies of the images from all social media. I'm guessing that's something put in as a bargaining chip rather than something that might actually happen?

erwins 22 August 2014 09:39 PM

It's not something that can actually happen. It doesn't make for a very good bargaining chip, but it does highlight the fact that now that the images are out there, there's no undoing it.

I know of a state case where a person's name was used in the case caption, and the appellate court opinion went into the details of the case. It was an involuntary commitment case, where there are statutes meant to protect the mentally ill person's privacy. Those laws didn't really work for cases on appeal. The mentally ill person filed a motion after the opinion came out asking the court to redact her name and to remove the name of the case from all searchable databases, etc. so that it would not show up on the internet.

Of course, the court had no way of doing the latter. It changed the case caption to her initials, and required the correction in the official reporter (case book), and requested that Lexis and Westlaw make the same change, but that was all the court could do. The court also revamped its practices to better protect identities in such cases in the future.

GenYus234 22 August 2014 10:21 PM

Since the images would be the copyrighted property of Viacom, could the court compel Viacom to demand/request the ISPs or websites to pull the images due to copyright violation whenever they were found?

ETA: Sort of a "make an effort" rule like how companies are required to defend (successfully or not) a trademark or risk losing it.

crocoduck_hunter 22 August 2014 10:31 PM

Probably, though now that they're online the Streisand Effect is going to apply to any attempts to remove them.

erwins 22 August 2014 10:37 PM

Plus a lot will likely fall under fair use, if it's a single screenshot from a TV show.

zarchery 25 August 2014 01:39 PM

I hate VH1. Reality television is already stupid enough, but these guys are always somehow finding ways to make even stupider.

Plurabelle 25 August 2014 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zarchery (Post 1839274)
I hate VH1. Reality television is already stupid enough, but these guys are always somehow finding ways to make even stupider.

The Surreal Life and Couples Therapy, anyone? Didn't they also do some kind of rehab show w/ dr Drew? I lost all respect for him (as if I had any to begin with) as a result of that show - rehab must be private and intimate. What a joke.

GenYus234 25 August 2014 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erwins (Post 1838959)
Plus a lot will likely fall under fair use, if it's a single screenshot from a TV show.

Assuming the ISP or host site wants to chance a fight with Viacom rather than remove the image.

zarchery 25 August 2014 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plurabelle (Post 1839275)
The Surreal Life and Couples Therapy, anyone? Didn't they also do some kind of rehab show w/ dr Drew? I lost all respect for him (as if I had any to begin with) as a result of that show - rehab must be private and intimate. What a joke.

I feel like reality TV is one of those avenues where satire just can't hope to keep up. No matter how absurd the premise the satirist invents, some reality producer will either implement or exceed it. Wasn't "Wife Swap" a sketch on Chapelle's Show before it became a network reality show.

I think the only way for satire to stay ahead of the absurdity of actual reality television is for the satirists to inflict overtly illegal acts on their characters. The Onion's "Sex House" did this well. For the first two episodes, you could see this actually being a real show, albeit a poorly planned one (putting 1 gay man and 7 heterosexuals isn't exactly conducive to that guy wanting sex).

You should all check out Sex House on YouTube. Fantastic stuff.

GenYus234 25 August 2014 02:54 PM

My half-serious, half-satire idea for a reality show seems more and more plausible as time goes on.

Impregnated By America - Like a dating show, but with sperm donors instead of romantic partners. A woman who wants a baby is presented with a group of potential sperm donors. As the show goes on, they are winnowed down via physical and mental challenges, voting by the viewers, and the woman. At the end of the show a single candidate is left. If the woman choses, the show will pay all medical costs for the impregnation and birth using that man's sperm.

Theme song will be a modified version of a certain Heart song.

Jay Temple 25 August 2014 04:47 PM

I picked up on a curious thing. The lawsuit says that her vagina was visible. Technically, it probably wasn't, unless they first exposed her vulva. I don't know the corresponding terms relating to "anus". Now I'm wondering if the producers deliberately worded the contract so that they can defend themselves: "We promised not to expose her vagina. We didn't. We exposed her vulva."

erwins 25 August 2014 06:19 PM

It's quite common for people to refer to lady parts in general as "vagina" in a misguided attempt to use the correct anatomical term. I don't think the producers would get away with that argument, since contract ambiguity is construed against the drafter. Since the word is used that way all the time, it would be at least ambiguous how it was meant.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu 02 December 2014 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Temple (Post 1839327)
I picked up on a curious thing. The lawsuit says that her vagina was visible. Technically, it probably wasn't, unless they first exposed her vulva. I don't know the corresponding terms relating to "anus". Now I'm wondering if the producers deliberately worded the contract so that they can defend themselves: "We promised not to expose her vagina. We didn't. We exposed her vulva."

I found the image (and of course, it was not hard to find). It certainly looks as though the vagina might be visible, but that may take a stretch of the imagination. Her anus, on the other hand, is clearly visible to the world.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.