Slashdot Mirror
Guy Game Results in Lawsuits and Injunction
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.
...yes, I'm certain this won't hurt sales at all. Kinda like Traci Lords "leaking" the fact that she was underage in order to get all her old movies pulled (and turned into hot collector's items) with the fringe benefit of making her last and only "adult age" porno flick sell like gangbusters.
What? So I'm a pervert. At least I'm open about it.
El riesgo vive siempre!
So she's old enough to be in college, she's happy to run around topless while at college, and she's smart enough to sue - but unable to give (or, indeed, not give) her consent to appear in the game.
Hurrah! for the law.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
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?
That's also why you have parents. Why did they let her run around topless for spring break in the first place if it was going to be such an issue? As for "tarnishing one's life", well, you're born topless. I don't understand why being seen with your shirt off is such a big deal anyway. Hell, until you hit the teenage years, lots of parents think little girls running around on the beach with no shirt on is "cute". As soon as they have breasts, though, everybody's sexual insecurities make them all uncomfortable about it. People like that need to grow up.
To top it off, it's not like somebody forced her to do this, or paid her to do it. 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. If having a photograph of a naked person in public who happens to be a minor is a crime, it should be the guardian of that minor who allowed them to be naked in public who should be held responsible. That assumes that the real goal here is to protect minors though, and not to make people feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they don't have to be embarresed that they're aroused by sexually mature women.
Since we're on slashdot I guess I should throw out a strawman here. What happens if a 17 year old streaks past the camera in a live newscast? Should the news outlet be prosecuted for child pornography, or be disallowed to keep that footage in their archive?
There's a point at which even a teenager should know the difference between right and wrong - wrong including posing nude and then signing papers claiming to be 18 years old (unless it was the stupidest company on the planet that had the releases drawn up, said releases would have a statement of age and would include her birthdate).
Bottom line: The game is most likely crap (I've never heard a good thing about it and have no interest myself) but this unidentified female is just another scumbag who wants a free payday.
RTA. Neither Sony nor Microsoft published the game. Take-Two's The Gathering publishes the game. The role Sony and Microsoft have is basically to see if the game is essentially 'bug free', ie it won't cause their console to burst into flames. They usually don't care about the content or the quality of the game itself, just whether or not it'll destroy their hardware.
Suing Sony and Microsoft here is like me suing a sports store where I bought those Adidas sneakers who got tangled up and caused me to fall, and scar my knees.
From the article: Why? Because the woman in question was only 17 at the time, and therefore legally incapable of giving her consent to be in The Guy Game, let alone half naked.
If she was a minor, what the frig' was she doing there, naked? I'm sure whoever was shooting checked their ages at the time (no one's going to be stupid enough NOT to). She must have had an illegal ID at hand (probably, its spring break, she was probably there drinking too). Being 17 doesn't make you stupid.
I can't help but notice an incredible amount of anger in your post.
I'm sad that you view the faith this way. I'm also sad for the 18,000 members of my Christian non-catholic church who donate well over nine million dollars a year, 92% of which ends up in community housing projects (of which the participating members do not get paid to participate), drug rehabilitation, counseling and support for the sexually abused, couselling and support for inner city kids to prevent gang violence. 7% goes to actually paying the fees/taxes associated with land ownership in our rather expensive area and 1% goes to the folks who actually *do* the legwork to make the 92% end up where it goes. Yeah, it's about money. A *real* church exists entirely for the benefit of its non-members.
It's sad that you paint with such a broad brush. The problem isn't "the Christians" or "the Catholics", it's the fact that so many in this country identify their religeon by their upbringing, not by their actual following.
An honest Christian is not quick to judge because he understands that he is the more grave of sinners. Christians are the worst sinners because we fully know and understand the sacrifice that was made for us and yet we sin anyway.
And regardless of how angry you get, or how angry I am about your bias against my faith, I'm praying for your salvation.
Didn't say anything about japan; all I was saying was that in some areas of some countries *cough*the us*cough* the girls, law-wise, might be way too young to have sex... but they are allowed to get married, and have sex with their husband/wife... =/
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
The only person who should get in trouble is the girl! She's the one who did it, was probably drinking (underage as well), and probably thought no one would ever see it. Now Joe-Blow at her High School pirated the game from the, enter-net, and saw her and recognized her from his Bioligy class. Then he proceeds to tell people, and she proceeds to take the defensive and say she's a good christian girl who has real morals and is underage and doesn't want this to ruin her future. Family sues game company, game consoles, people who filmed it, etc. Now, let me get this straight...You mean to tell me if I cut my arm off with a Craftsmen Saw, I can sue Craftsmen for cutting off my arm? Sweeeeeeeet! Lets all go out and make bad decisions, and then get defensive, and sue everyone!
Flat Screen TV for F
News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.
Show me the law that says that. If it's done in public, it's fair game, regardless of whether it is "newsworthy" or not. I don't recall any newsworthiness standards, so I think that you're completely wrong.
Bzzzt. He's completely right. You're not.
Specifically what's wrong is your idea that "if it's done in public, it's fair game" - no, it isn't, and I want to put a stop to this myth right now.
Read this to learn the difference between informational (ie. news) and commercial (ie. non-news) uses of photography. Read this for some general information on when and why a release is required.
Now that that's out of the way, surely you must know that minors cannot sign binding contracts (ie. a release from a minor is meaningless, even if one exists in this case), and that depictions of underage nudity in this country are illegal in their own right. What some people are doing in this thread right now is defending child porn, whether or not they think that's what it is. Legally, that is what it is.
There is grounds for a lawsuit here on several different issues, and grounds for criminal prosecution on at least one.