robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (08/07/84)
References: > So far, I have only seen one comment on this subject that really > addresses the issue and that was by Sherry Marts. Both these organizations > are in the business of exploiting women and I think it is kind of > pointless to argue over which one has the right to exploit V Williams. The Miss America Pageant paid Miss Williams for the privilege of exploiting her in a manner that was acceptable to her. Penthouse is exploiting her in a way that she claims is unacceptable and embarassing to her. Whether we are considering the "Women's exploitation" business, the ad business, the moving van business, Cosa Nostra or personal computers, I think we should still try to distinguish between companies that ride roughshod over the considerations of people they deal with, and companies that do not. The Miss America Pageant was widely criticized for their handling of Vanessa Williams, but it's hard to believe that anything they did to her will mark her for life in the way that those pictures, published against her will, may. I'm not arguing about who has the right to exploit Vanessa Williams; I'm concerned about what we can do to companies as insensitive and (I hope) illegally-acting as Penthouse. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/08/84)
Toby Robison says: "The Miss America Pageant was widely criticized for their handling of Vanessa Williams, but it's hard to believe that anything they did to her will mark her for life in the way that those pictures, published against her will, may." Bob Guccione (the publisher of Penthouse) says that when he bought the pictures of Vanessa Williams, the person who sold him the pictures also gave him a model release signed by Williams. He looked at the release, decided its language wasn't strong enough, and demanded one with stronger language before he would buy the pictures. The photographer obtained this release, which Guccione says he had scrutinized by handwriting analysts for possible forgery before accepting it. Model releases normally allow whoever is paying the model to do anything at all with the photographs thus released. Now, there are three possibilities: 1. Guccione is lying: he did not get a model release authorizing him to publish the pictures. In this case, he deserves whatever happens to him, and I hope the settlement runs to nine figures. I find it hard to believe, though, that Guccione would be that stupid. 2. Guccione was misled. He was given what he thought was a valid model release but was actually a forgery or somehow signed under coercion. In that case, the forger or coercer must take the blame. It does seem that Guccione considered the possibility of forgery and tried to take it into account. 3. The model release is genuine. In that case, I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for Vanessa Williams. Once she signed it, she gave away any rights she might have had to control the pictures. And I can't blame Guccione for not holding up the publication until Williams' term was over: publishing when he did was probably worth millions of dollars. In summary: either Williams authorized the use of the pictures or she didn't. If she did, tough. If not, I hope she wins zillions of dollars in court.