robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (07/27/84)
References: There is an important issue in the Vanessa Williams Penthouse article that has hardly been addressed on the net yet. I think a little commonsense will show that HER PRIVACY HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY INVADED. I wonder whether current law will protect her in this respect if she chooses to sue. If not, I think we need some new law. It is my understanding that the photo essay included a detailed photograph of VW's vaginal area. The photo, as Tom Chiapel is said to have promised VW, was apparently anonymous in the sense that her face was not shown, and she could not easily be identified from the photograph. However Penthouse published the photo in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that this was a photo of VW. Furthermore, it is likely that the photo was published despite VW's obvious desire that it not be published. There seems to be a general feeling that this sort of photo is protected by the constitutional right of a free press, and the right of the press to investigate and lay bare the privacy of public figures. A release of some sort is required from the model, after which the picture simply becomes a piece of merchandise. I argue here that there are obvious extremes which are not issues of free speech, and are not "news" about public figures, but are simply an unwarranted invasion of privacy. This photo is probably an excellent example of such an invasion. VW should be able to sue for damages if it was in fact published without her RECENT consent to the specific photo. If existing law will not protect her, then I would like to see legislation governing published pictures of recognizable people, that lists specific parts of the body, and specific physical acts, that cannot be photographed and published unless each specific picture is approved by the subject within, say, 90 days of publication. It might be appropriate for the legislation to apply only to people above a certain age (say, 12 months). I would like to ask you readers to imagine inappropriate photos, not just of women, but also of men, and not only of a sexual nature, but of other acts as well; consider such photographs of various public people, or of yourself, and ask yourself whether there can ever be an excuse for them if the people pictured do not desire publication. I realize that there would be gray areas, and that the burden such legislation would place on the publishers might be great (first, to obtain timely releases, and second, to determine what needs this sort of release). These burdens might well have a chilling effect on the publication of such pictures, but I fail to see what society might stand to lose. There is certainly no general violation of FREE SPEECH. Words written about VW in Penthouse, subject to the laws of libel, should be protected and certainly do not (since words are easier to disbelieve and less explicit) present the same kind of invasion of privacy. There is certainly no NEWS issue in this photograph either. The news about VW's modeling can be conveyed perfectly well in words and less explicit photos, such as have been shown on TV in its reports on this story. The press is already bound by laws of libel, and I find it hard to imagine that my proposal would make the press any less free. Unless VW is a willing participant in this exploit, looking for free publicity, she has simply been raped in public by Penthouse Magazine and deserves considerable compensation, regardless of the rather general release to publish she may have given to the photographer in the past. One might argue that the model's release provides sufficient protection, and VW was simply too foolish. Although it is not possible to know for sure what Tom Chiapel and Vanessa Williams discussed, the explanations we have heard from VW, while foolish, are certainly plausible. One can consider that she may not have seen the specific negatives from which the Penthouse essay was made. She may not have been able to see, looking at a contact sheet, what could be made of the negatives if they were enlarged. She may have felt she had a relationship of trust with her photographer. The public humiliation that she has suffered for perhaps such an easy oversight has been disproportionately large. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (07/29/84)
The following is a quote from an article by Michael Matza in the current (July 31) Boston Phenix: "If there's a personality profile that exemplifies all the players in this made-for-People melodrama, it includes a longing for status among the rich and famous, a willingness to to be extreme -- and single-minded -- in the service of a cherished ideal, and an unerring instinct for the main chance. When the book or movie abut the Vanessa Williams Story comes out, look for the word exploitation on the dust jacket or marquee in capital letters. Williams, to be sure, is the victim in this drama, but she's far from a babe in the woods. Her pictures tell us that, as does her surpassing achievement in what has to be the most ruthlessly cut-throat competition ever devised for ambitious young women. Including the local and regional elimination contests that serve as the preliminaries for the final at Atlantic City, some 70,000 women compete annually for the coveted Miss america crown, estimates author Frank Deford [author of 'There She Is', the definitive book on the contest]. How does a woman manage to elbow aside 70,000 other apsirants on her way to that flashbulb- popping walk down the shining runway? Calculatingly, no doubt. And it's probably safe to say that Miss Americas before Vanessa Williams and those who'll come after her have done and will do things with their clothes on that are morally more ambiguous than her silly but harmless photo session in the nude.... "So it's bye-bye Miss America Pie. And with you, let's hope, go the amiss American pieties and myths about womanhood, and wholesomeness, and pagentry." Transcribed by Martin Minow decvax!minow
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (09/21/84)
References: >>Why do I keep reading here that Vanessa Williams isn't suing? >>According to at least two articles I've seend in the newspaper >>she IS suing - both Penthouse and the photographer - for >>$10,000 plus the profits. >>I don't know where she came up with $10,000. It seems like >>she should have started with a million or so. >> Sue Brunkow >> ...seismo!uwvax!maccvax!consult The million or so will come out of her share of the profits. By the way, this sounds like a great idea. VW will not deserve a share of the profits because, in any positive sense, of what she did. She might deserve profits as a punishment for Penthouse not obtaining a release. There's nothing like directing punishment directly at the profit motive. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (09/25/84)
I don't get it. What's the problem? The woman posed for some nude and suggestive pictures, was presumably paid for doing so, and now she wants to sue the photographers for publishing them. What did she think they would do with them, tear them up and scatter them in the street? Is she trying to deny that she posed for them? I think the problem is hers -- if she wanted into a mickeymouse game like Miss America then she should have kept her mickey moused.