NJ Mom Sues over BFing-video-turned porn

[redheadbaker]

:-|

news.yahoo.com/nj-mom-sues-over-breast-feeding-video-turned-220008832.html

WOOD RIDGE, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey mother is suing an Iowa production company after an instructional breast-feeding video she appeared in was taken by a third party and used to create pornography.

A federal court judge ruled last week that MaryAnn Sahoury's lawsuit against the Meredith Corp. could proceed. In January 2010, Sahoury agreed to demonstrate breast-feeding techniques with her month-old daughter in a video for Parents TV, which broadcasts original videos on parenting. Sahoury, who had had trouble breast-feeding, wanted to help women who faced similar difficulties, she said.

"I didn't get paid to do this. I didn't want to be some sort of celebrity," Sahoury, 35, told The Associated Press. "I did this to help other moms."

Sahoury claims she was told by a producer that only first names would be used in the video. When filming was over, Sahoury was asked to sign a piece of paper; she was juggling her daughter and signed it without reading.

Months later, Sahoury Googled herself. She was shocked by the results: numerous links to pornographic sites and videos containing her name. She clicked on one and saw the breast-feeding video spliced with a woman of "similar features and stature" performing sex acts, according to the lawsuit. Sahoury then Googled her infant daughter's name, which also returned links to pornographic sites and videos.

"It was terrifying," Sahoury said. "It was like I can't even control my life and it was spiraling out of control."

Sahoury's full name was used in the video, the lawsuit states, yielding the Google results. The lawsuit also claims the video was placed on YouTube, when Sahoury was told it would appear only on Parents TV and cable television. Her lawsuit is seeking an order prohibiting the defendants from using the video featuring her and her daughter for any purpose; it also seeks attorney fees.

Meredith said the paper Sahoury signed was a release authorizing the company to use her "image, voice and name," according to her suit.

The lawsuit states the Des Moines, Iowa-based company initially worked to help find the person believed to be responsible for the video and remove it from the Internet, but the help waned. Sahoury said videos kept popping up even after they were taken down.

In a statement, Meredith said it is "appalled" that the video was misused and it hired lawyers to file take-down demands and Internet specialists to clear online caches and continues the "good-faith efforts."

"We have taken these actions even though Ms. Sahoury signed a full release for herself and her daughter," the statement said.
Sahoury said she hopes the lawsuit leads to greater Internet protections.

"I never want this to happen again," she said.

[decemberwedding07]

:-| ZOMG!

[bhnumbers]

Wtf is wrong with people??!! How horrifying for his woman

[karinothing]

Omg! How horrible. I mean she should have read the contract, but sheesh! Also, so the video shows pictures of her Bfing and then shows sex? So, it is sexualizing BFing? AWESOME and disgusting. How is that not like somewhat child porn like? I mean it is using a kid in a sexual video ? Ugh, so gross.

[passthewine]

How do people still sign things like this without reading them?

[Deleted]

That is AWFUL on so many levels.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2012 8:29:52 GMT -5 passthewine said:

How do people still sign things like this without reading them?

Happens allllllllll the time. IME patients will sign any document shoved at them without a glance, even when encouraged to read it. When I'm the patient, I read what I'm signing and often get eyerolls, but I don't give a rat's ass. Especially when I remember abuses like the one done to this poor mom.

[aw]

Aug 10, 2012 8:29:52 GMT -5 passthewine said:

How do people still sign things like this without reading them?

So much this.

What a horrible situation.

[miesl]

Honestly, how many people would think that by signing a release to a company making a BFing film (which seems like std policy for public distribution of images) that it was also authorizing them to turn it into porn?

[wawa]

Aug 10, 2012 9:13:45 GMT -5 miesl said:

Honestly, how many people would think that by signing a release to a company making a BFing film (which seems like std policy for public distribution of images) that it was also authorizing them to turn it into porn?

yeah, if I agreed to make this video, which I thought was for educational purposes, which would use my first name - i'm not sure that I'd think twice about signing something that gave them the rights to use my name and likeness. Isn't that what we just agreed to? It wouldn't occur to me that the contract should specify "for this one breastfeeding education video only and totally not for porn"

[aw]

Aug 10, 2012 9:13:45 GMT -5 miesl said:

Honestly, how many people would think that by signing a release to a company making a BFing film (which seems like std policy for public distribution of images) that it was also authorizing them to turn it into porn?

I don't know. I think I would read the fine print on anything that gives the right to pictures or film of my naked breasts.

[passthewine]

Aug 10, 2012 9:13:45 GMT -5 miesl said:

Honestly, how many people would think that by signing a release to a company making a BFing film (which seems like std policy for public distribution of images) that it was also authorizing them to turn it into porn?

My mind wouldn't necessarily go to porn but I'm allowing them to film me with my tits out, I'd want to read it and make sure that it can only be used for that intended purpose.
In an age where there's constantly outrage over privacy terms & conditions on whether FB or photo hosting sites can use your pics for their own purposes, I can't imagine that people wouldn't read through a release for shooting a video showing their boobs.
Eh, maybe I'm just a cynic.

[mskitkat]

Aug 10, 2012 9:13:45 GMT -5 miesl said:

Honestly, how many people would think that by signing a release to a company making a BFing film (which seems like std policy for public distribution of images) that it was also authorizing them to turn it into porn?

This. I would think it was necessary for the film, and I do read everything I sign.