OOOHHHHHH Snap! I hate to say it but Joe Scum has a point. ““She should keep in mind, it’s considerably more than the Governor of New York paid her, and our activities aren’t illegal,”

I’m pretty sure intoxicated persons are not competent to enter into a contract or give legally binding consent. I also think that something called the parole evidence rule would actually keep that evidence out of court, anyway. Francis also fucked up when he decided not to pay anything to those girls. There is no consideration for a contract (ie, there is no quid pro quo), if he had paid each girl $100, he could say there was a contract, but he was too cheap, and gave them nothing. You generally can not enter a contract to bind yourself in exchange for nothing. So, in short, Joe, she has a much better than zero chance of winning.

@ChoniBaretz–That actually cheers me up slightly.

I hope his hell is filled with old ladies with whiskers and tits hanging past their waists.

Choni - do you see the word contract anywhere? She gave consent - totally valid. Cord - considering that you participate in the media jungle that brings fame and fortune to those lacking any talent but self promotion (Kardashians/Hiltons) I’m surprised you reserve a special place in hell for Joe. Perhaps with the help of Virgil you can explain the different levels of exploitation.

If she really was 17, like she claims, when he got the video of her, his statement about having footage of her showing her ID and giving consent is pretty much nothing.
When I was 17, I had a fake and I can pretty much guarantee that 98.9% of the girls on Spring Break in Florida have one too.
(I’m going to pray that she really was 17 so they can get this SOB on kiddie porn charges)

You know, I am not a fan of Joe Francis, and I hate his nose job, but I say you gotta respect the guy for coming up with an idea and running with it. He was a production assistant before he became Head Scumbo- proof that the sky really is the limit if you work hard for your goals. Believe me- I’m not advocating that girls flash their breasts for a t-shirt, and I think he and his crew’s cajoling is the type of stuff that leads many women to call “date rape,” but as a businessman, the guy’s pretty savvy. (If you overlook that whole taxes issue.)

I’m actually more irritated that this bitch is being offered a million dollars for shaking her titties for all of - what - 30 seconds? I’m hoping she says no, sues him, and loses.

My bottom line (which will not be featured in a commercial with the words, “Wet & Wild!” over it as I flail in a drunken haze) is that they are both kinda gross, she needs to go away, and he needs to get back to doing what he does best- capitalizing on drunk hot girls.

TangerineSpeedo, Choni is spot on. It IS a contracts issue. And Choni is exactly right about the biggest issue in contracts law: consideration. And what the fuck did these girls get out of this?

Joe knows all this because he has lawyers and he knows she has a good chance and that’s why he’s trying to buy her off. Joe, ya dipshit, we can all see right through ya! Ashley! Don’t accept his deal!

It doesn’t matter if she gave consent. She was UNDERAGE and DRUNK — two huge no-nos in contract law.

As far as her showing a fake, that kind of thing could (and should, in my mind) hold up if this was a case of a guy taking a girl home and thinking she was 18 but she shows him a fake. But this isn’t that case at all. Joe and his company have made millions and millions off of driving around in their disease-and-spooge-covered bus and getting drunk girls to do shit on film so that they can sell it and make bank off of them. If they can’t guarantee that these women are not 18 (which they obviously can’t because this keeps happening), then as MILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMEN, the burden is on them to come up with a new gameplan. If they’re not going to do it–and they won’t because their pieces of shit–then that’s what the law is for. Thank fucking god. It doesn’t always work as you’d hope, but by Jesus I am so looking forward to this closeted, self-hating, Paris Hilton-juice sucking piece of shit to be kicked off of his throne.

Yes, I have a Contracts final exam in about 26 hours. And I’m going to kick ass on it! And someday I’ll kick the asses of asses like this in court! Muhahahahaha!

THEY ARE pieces of shit, not ‘their pieces of shit.’ Though really, doesn’t either one work?

lale, I agree. I am no fan of Ashley and the movement that is giving us young women selling themselves so they can live in $4000/mo NYC lofts and afford fancy shoes. But anyone that sues Joe is awesome in my world and she totally wins here, if only in my mind.

I hate Joe Francis just as much as the next person but COME ON! This girl is a (former) prostitute and she’s bitching that girls gone wild exploited her?? Give me a break, since her music career is going no where and she can’t fuck for money anymore she’s just looking for other sources of income.

lale: Also, while I totally get your point, I’d disagree that they’re savvy businessmen. They’re just your run-of-the mill thieves:

from Wikipedia:
Violations of previous (FTC) determinations that an act or practice is unfair or deceptive and unlawful carry a civil penalty of up to $11,000 per violation. The Commission’s complaint alleges that since December 2000, Mantra and Francis deceptively marketed Girls Gone Wild videos and DVDs to consumers, automatically shipped these unordered videos and DVDs to consumers, and charged consumers for them without consumers’ consent.

Jill, I’ll also have to run my mouth a bit longer and disagree with you. Ashley has every right to stop Girls Gone Wild from using her image to sell their shit since by doing so, they are not only violating her rights but are breaking the law. Good for her for sticking up for herself. And we haven’t seen her out doing the talkshow circuit or posing for playboy or getting book deals for giving details on Spitzer and his black socks. Joe Francis is actively using this sad situation to sell his crappy videos, and as yet, she hasn’t used this to make any money. So go get that shitbag, Ashley!

member when GGW first came out, there was another one just like it being advertised late at night? what was that one called? wonder what makes one exploitative pile of bullshit more successful than another? joe francis has a big face and he’s always smiling, what a tool. cord - you should be the one to beat him up. who needs amazon women?

adeline.jane: Joe Francis probably murdered them.

@ TangerineSpeedo
In order to consent to be in that video, you would need to sign a release, which is a contract. Im pretty sure that simply saying, “I consent” is not legally binding–it likely requires a signature, and an agreement that Joe or “Girls Gone Wild” owns the footage and has the right to use, reproduce and sell it. That would be a contract.

To clarify my first post, the video of her “consenting” (at least under federal rules) won’t come in as evidence of her consenting. The jury won’t get to see it or even hear about it.

Ooooh, if she is under age, she can’t consent, she can’t enter a contract, and a fake id is no defense for Joe.

OK, last post, I promise…but
@ Jill
I see what you are saying, but don’t we have to ask if her life might have turned out better if people like Francis weren’t exploiting her when she was a kid? Francis doesn’t have a right to give teenagers alcohol and sell porno tapes of them, no matter what they wind up becoming when they grow up.

Well,I wouldn’t consider Dupre “grown up” since she’s about 20 years old. Making the GGW incident about 3 years old and she’d been a prostitute for a while previous to the Spitzer scandal. Dupre seems like the kind of girl that would probably have flashed her bits and exploited herself regardless if anyone was videotaping her or not. I don’t think the problem is Francis himself, (even though he is a scum bag) someone was probably exploiting this girl a long, long time ago for her to turn out like this.

Choni - you can’t get exploited in those videos unless you want to get exploited. At 17 (or 18, 19 or 20), you shouldn’t be out getting drunk and flashing your titties, whether it is for a camera or for drunk frat boys.

Girls CHOOSE to drink, no one forces them to do it. As I tell my teenage nieces, nothing good comes from getting drunk or drinking at all underage. As far as I am concerned, if you are dumb enough to drink underage or even as a legal drinker to get drunk, you get what you are asking for with this shit.

Kat, it is still illegal, whether or not you think she is immoral. People who are underage can not consent to be in pornography. Adults are not allowed to get minors drunk, whether they are willing or not, nor are they allowed to sell porn featuring people under 18. All 17 year olds are dumb in one way or another, because they lack experience, and their brains are not fully developed. They are not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. I am not willing to burn anyone at the stake for being stupid at 17, especially if that means essentially condoning the exploitation of minors.

CDD, Girls Gone Wild stopped the automatic shipping a long time ago (I think). But I believe Proactive still does it. They’re all fuckers in my book. Rich, ambitious fuckers.

Compensation doesn’t have to be money; it can be anything. Even barter. It just has to be something of “value,” or as is used in legalese, “for valuable consideration.” Because this is vague, most courts interpret this as being whether the contract entered into between the parties were done in full awareness of what they were getting into. So, if you write into the model release that you will give the subject a fake Rolex watch, and the person agrees, a judge would probably say that’s ok. But, if it says you’ll give them a verbal compliment, a judge might have a problem with that. Obviously, the item of value must be a “legal” item—recreational drugs are not going to look good in a judge’s opinion, regardless of how much “value” they may have.

A popular form of compensation that some photographers like to use is a physical “print” of the photograph in return for permission to use it (via a signed release). This is fine, but be aware of the time, cost and effort to do this, especially if you’re going to be doing it frequently. It’s common to do this for emerging models who are trying to build their portfolio, or if you’re running a photo studio or other form of business where you make prints all the time as a standard part of business. Making another print for someone in exchange for a release is easy. But if you don’t make a lot of prints, and if you plan on getting a lot of releases, then this could be expensive. For the common person on the street, it just might be easier (and quicker) to just pay them money. A dollar is typical.

Professional photo shoots usually involve a modeling agency, which will produce a release for you to sign, binding you to limitations for what you can do with the photos. Usually, the client and use are known ahead of time, which is written into the contract.

Where the “compensation” is not involved is when the release is part of a broader agreement between the parties. A typical example is where one goes on tour with an adventure travel company. Here, the liability release waiver, which usually states that you won’t sue the company if you slip and hurt yourself, usually has additional language that allows the company to use pictures of you for use in its catalogs. In fact, this is part of my business. I shoot photographs for travel outfitters that sell trips to clients who pay to go hiking, biking, or take cultural tours around the world. The clients are always informed of what’s going on, and people can opt-out if they want to, simply because that’s good business etiquette. However, the advantage here is that the release has been obtained ahead of time, thereby relieving everyone from the hassle of taking care of it after the fact (or during the trip), should the need arise.

Compensation for a release does not always have to be money, or even a barter, but the enforceability of the release is going to be whether an objective judge perceives the relationship between parties is being that of full disclosure and mutual agreement.

TangerineSpeedo: this case is less about compensation and more about whether or not this contract was legal. The issue of compensation was a secondary one brought up. However, it will still be part of the case no doubt because Girls Gone Wild often pays its victims in t-shirts and those god-awful hooters-style shorts. So that will go to the fact that this was not a fair dealing (the heart of contracts law) because one side made millions off of drunk girls and the other side got some shitty shorts. But even if the court sees it as a fair, bargained-for exchange, it doesn’t matter! Because the bigger issue is the age and the drunk state–two things that will very likely make that crappy contract void. And that little bitch (Joe) knows it.

Jill and Kat, you are missing the issue here. Who cares if she is now a hooker at 21? At SEVENTEEN, some scumbag took video of her (illegally) and now years later is using that footage to promote his company. Why should Joe be able to profit off someone in this manner? He shouldn’t.

Though Kat, you have a good point and do give good advice to your nieces: be fucking careful out there! Don’t be a dumb drunk idiot and you won’t end up in federal court fighting for your image and your rights to being with.

ugh! that should end “to BEGIN with”

@cdd
good luck on your contracts exam! You sound like you are in great shape, readiness-wise, and I think your responses are “model answers” if you know what I mean! Set the curve!

1. Contracts need not be fair - that is one of the most absurd comments ever.
2. Age is an issue, but in some states if a minor does not cancel a contract while still a minor or within a reasonable time of reaching majority it will be enforced.
3. Drunk people can engage in commerce unless the sober party knew and took advantage of that fact - high burden of proof, see Atlantic City and Vegas.

Commerce is not the same as contract. A minor can not enter a contract to be in pornography. Period. Therefore, a minor need not “cancel” anything. I can’t imagine that the burden of proving GGW takes advantage of drunk people would be very high, its the entire premise of the product: “look at what we got these stupid drunk girls to do on film!” But this doesn’t matter, because she can’t enter a contract to be in this video. There is no legal defense. Francis knows it. No one on earth offers a million dollars to settle a lawsuit the plaintiff has a 0% chance of winning.

Aside from contracts, this is a criminal issue, and it is a federal crime to make, transmit, possess, or sell child pornography. If she was under age, it IS child porn under the law. The law doesn’t care if he didn’t know she was under age. Makes no difference.

You folks that are blessed with the intellegence to pursue the legal ambitions have my utmost respect. I get goosebumps just getting to read all this.

I love me some lawyer words.

(Good luck on your exam cdd!)

She’s not defending herself. She’s trying to make major bank for being a total ho-bag! She knew exactly what she was doing when GGW filmed her, and she deserves nothing! She needs to STFU and go away! Bitch, take the million and go crawl under a rock somewhere! Yeah, Joe Francis is a scuz, but he did nothing wrong to this girl.