Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction

Posted by Zonk on from the stupidity-beyond-my-comprehension dept.

Several readers have written in to report on Tuesday's lawsuit regarding 'The Guy Game'. The PC/console offering, which strings a weak trivia game around footage of naked college age girls, has come under fire after the revelation that a woman featured prominently in the game was under the age of 18 at the time the footage was taken. The lawsuit names Sony (PS2), Microsoft (Xbox), Take-Two Interactive (Publisher), and Top Heavy Studios (Developer) as defendants. Commentary available on GamesIndustry.biz.

5 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to the Cox News Service, the lawsuit explains: "Plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to attend college, develop her career and be active in her community and church."

    I wonder what the church thinks of the game. Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.

    1. Re:Well... by thefirelane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.

      Insightful? You realize that's why we have the concept of 'a minor' right? So that dumb youthful indiscretions do not tarnish one's life for ever?

    2. Re:Well... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah right. And when a minor kills someone and the courts let them off easy 'cause their only 15, it's OK. They shouldn't be responsible for stealing the gun, shooting the victim, etc - they are just a minor.

      She was 17 years old running around topless on a beach because she wanted people to look at her cute little titties. And now she's bitching and whining and suing over it.

      You may believe that people should be able to do any damn fool thing they want with no repercussions, but that's an unreasonable belief. Real life doesn't work that way.

      The very idea that one would be "tarnished forever" for running around partially nude is nonsense in and of itself.

    3. Re:Well... by Romeozulu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's something that happened in a public place, and as such it shouldn't be any less legal to photograph it than it is to witness it.

      It's perfectly legal to photograph someone in a public place, but it is not legal to use that image for commerical purposes. This is a issues that photographers deal wih everyday.

    4. Re:Well... by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree with the stupid whiny thing, but on the other hand, it's not like it's well known what you have to do as far as release forms goes for crowd footage. And if the crowd footage happens to be of very young college girls with thier tops off, then anyone with half a brain should realize they need to go the extra mile to make 100% certain than they aren't shipping anything with underage girls in it. If she was an out of focus background character cause she streaked by while they were filming someone else, that'd be a different story.