ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on August 22, 2014, 01:17:45 AM
-
Yes, this is very real and unbelievable. She goes on to the show knowing she will be naked on national TV but she is upset because of a brief second that her vagina and anus is showing.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/20/dating-naked-cast-member-sues-after-crotch-blur-fail/
http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/08/21/dating-naked-lawsuit/
The alleged non-blurring can be shown here.
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/90556128.html
-
gotta love that one tweet... they showed her "whole" vagina...yeah leave it to me..or is that leave it to beaver??.... : )
-
:o
gotta love that one tweet... they showed her "whole" vagina...yeah leave it to me..or is that leave it to beaver??.... : )
-
I was thinking of you when I posted this story. I knew you would grab on to it so to speak.... ;)
gotta love that one tweet... they showed her "whole" vagina...yeah leave it to me..or is that leave it to beaver??.... : )
-
http://youtu.be/9CdVTCDdEwI
I was thinking of you when I posted this story. I knew you would grab on to it so to speak.... ;)
gotta love that one tweet... they showed her "whole" vagina...yeah leave it to me..or is that leave it to beaver??.... : )
-
I have some sympathy for her. But it's rather limited. I do hope she got a guarantee in writing and that she is awarded some damages. These shows do need to honor their contractual obligations. Also: potentially, shows of this type gain viewership if there are no adverse consequences to mistakes, they have little incentive to be more careful.
She added that the show cost her a “budding relationship” with a man she had been seeing for a month.
“He never called me again after the show aired. I would have hoped we could have had a long-term relationship. He was employed, Jewish, in his 30s and that’s pretty much ideal,” Nizewitz said.
The show may have cost her that. But it may have cost her that without the unauthorized showing of vag. Lots of guys would not want ot date a woman who appears on this sort of show. Other guys wouldn't mind, or would think it was a plug. But this guy may be in the first category.
-
Lucia said "vag"...I'm sorry I just find this whole thing humorous..then again I still find farts pretty funny too.
-
Would you have preferred vajayjay?
-
I like vijay jay, but I think that was copyrighted by the show "two and a half men"
-
Vajayjay only implies if you are referencing one from India.
-
I thought it applied to anyone who used "Vajazzle".
But stoppit!! We are getting away from my substantive points here!!!!! DAMMIT! ( Not that I think we are going to get back on track. But substantive points are
a: With respect to tort law, she may have a valid complaint. If there was breech of contract and the show revealed more than contractually permitted, the courts should do something about that. Some financial remedy might be justifiable. If she was sloppy and didn't get it in writing, people going on these shows need to become more contract savvy.
b: I'm a bit skeptical about claims of huge amounts of huge amounts emotional distress. I imagine there is some.
c: Budding relationship guy might have dumped her anyway. I doubt his dumping her is due to error on the part of the shows producers.
)
Equally substantive point: What motivated Matt to post this in the first place? Does he want to discuss the possible legal issues around the possible breech of contract issue that involves revealing more of this woman's naked body than she agreed to? Or not?
-
I'm not sure but I think Matt was interested in whether the "naked shots" were copyrighted or not. Something about a project that might embarass our favorite Washington state attorney. Or was that my idea ????
-
This was just one of those legal things that jumped out as being a little on the weird side...so Matthew posted about it. I'm sure he knew where I would go with it, and he probably knew that some (Lucia) would bring valid points to the table..I'll try to behave as best I can..squirrel!!!
-
She filed a lawsuit against the producers over a matter that you don't hear about. That is what was interesting to me. She agrees to be fully naked on the show but she thinks that one quick peep shot hurt her reputation? I would saying agreeing to be naked on the show regardless has its own sets of issues and challenges.
Equally substantive point: What motivated Matt to post this in the first place? Does he want to discuss the possible legal issues around the possible breech of contract issue that involves revealing more of this woman's naked body than she agreed to? Or not?