snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 August 2014, 08:55 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,642
Yow! '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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22 August 2014, 09:14 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,542
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 August 2014, 09:39 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,911
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22 August 2014, 10:21 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,542
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22 August 2014, 10:31 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,251
Default

Probably, though now that they're online the Streisand Effect is going to apply to any attempts to remove them.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22 August 2014, 10:37 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,911
Default

Plus a lot will likely fall under fair use, if it's a single screenshot from a TV show.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25 August 2014, 01:39 PM
zarchery zarchery is offline
 
Join Date: 08 December 2012
Location: Newark, DE
Posts: 105
Default

I hate VH1. Reality television is already stupid enough, but these guys are always somehow finding ways to make even stupider.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25 August 2014, 01:44 PM
Plurabelle's Avatar
Plurabelle Plurabelle is offline
 
Join Date: 29 September 2003
Location: Brussels, Belgium (home base: Ann Arbor, MI)
Posts: 1,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zarchery View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25 August 2014, 02:11 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25 August 2014, 02:22 PM
zarchery zarchery is offline
 
Join Date: 08 December 2012
Location: Newark, DE
Posts: 105
Tsk, Tsk

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plurabelle View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25 August 2014, 02:54 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,542
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25 August 2014, 04:47 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

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."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25 August 2014, 06:19 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,911
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02 December 2014, 02:43 AM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Temple View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dating with Aspergerís wanderwoman Social Studies 15 09 December 2013 11:35 AM
Denmark's 'naked lady' TV show causes furore Richard W NFBSK Gone Wild! 5 31 May 2013 06:25 PM
The Problem with Online Dating snopes Social Studies 42 10 January 2013 04:46 PM
Wheel of Fortune Contestant Picks Wrong Letter snopes Fauxtography 4 17 November 2011 08:26 PM
Game show contestant died on the air snopes Entertainment 4 11 September 2009 09:58 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.