Mo. Woman Wins $5.77M In 'Girls Gone Wild' Suit

[cbdo2007]

Mo. Woman Wins $5.77M In 'Girls Gone Wild' Suit

ST. LOUIS -- The maker of "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs is seeking to overturn a judge's decision that awards nearly $6 million to a St. Louis-area woman who claimed her bare breasts were recorded without permission.

St. Louis Circuit Judge John Garvey awarded $5.77 million to Tamara Favazza. She was a college student in 2005 when someone lifted her shirt at a St. Louis bar. The image was part of the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" DVD series.

Click Like For News Updates:
Favazza sued Mantra Films and MRA Holdings LLC, claiming she did not give consent. A St. Louis jury sided with the DVD makers in 2010, but a retrial was granted, and Garvey issued his ruling on March 5.

On Wednesday, the defendants filed motions to set aside the judgment and asking for a new trial.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/30967621/detail.html#ixzz1tdkC9bM4

[Taverner]

1. I've always said, if you do porn, you deserve to get paid

Not that flashing your top is porn - but all work deserves compensation

[cbdo2007]

3. someone else lifted her shirt, she wasn't participating in the

girls gone wild stuff, she was just hanging out at the bar with friends that night.

[Taverner]

7. Then even MORE reason she should end up with money

Although, from what you said this sounds more criminal than civil...as in someone needs to be arrested

[arcane1]

2. Interesting... no charges for the person who lifted her shirt?

Kind of strange that the first court sided with the DVD maker too, I wonder what their reasoning was. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

[cbdo2007]

4. That is a good point, should have been an assault charge

against the person when it happened if she truly wasn't a willing participant. Maybe she just didn't get paid as much as she was hoping??

I don't have a link but if I remember correctly, the woman claimed she was just hanging out in the bar with friends when someone lifted her shirt for the cameras without her permission. I think the first court said that because she knew filming was going on she should have known that there would be a chance she would be on video, and so just being at the bar made her a willing participant.

[onenote]

6. The jury in the first case concluded she had given her implied consent

From what I've read about the case, the producers claimed that there were signs posted indicating that the party was being filmed, although I don't know what exactly these signs disclosed. The plaintiff claimed not to have seen the signs. According to one juror, the verdict against the plaintiff was based on their having concluded that she was playing to the cameras.

I suspect that the reason she was able to prevail on retrial is that it came out that the person lifting her top was an employee, plus the fact that the plaintiff can be heard on the video saying "no" when she's asked to flash the camera.

Juries are unpredictable.

[Taverner]

8. Sexual Assault at least

[HappyMe]

5. Good grief!