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 Furthermore, it is likely that the photo was published despite VW's obvious desire that it not be published.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