A woman who can now been seen writhing in ecstasy on YouTube has filed a $5 million modeling remorse suit, claiming she never agreed to “simulate a female having an orgasm” for a jewelry commercial.
The anonymous plaintiff, who describes herself only as a “37 year old female” and a “live on-air host for a national cable network program,” spends the entire 30-second commercial for Szul Jewelry of New York dressed in a teal teddy and moaning as she fingers her necklace with bump-and-grind music blaring in the background.
She was paid only $200 for her work on the “Rock Her World” spot, part of an online or “viral” advertising campaign. Now she is suing Szul and the production company Q2 Productions for violation of her publicity rights, unfair business practices and fraud.
“Plaintiff has worked hard to project a wholesome image” in her modeling, acting and hosting career, the complaint says, and
At no time did Plaintiff consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image, or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure.
Some Internet commenters have ridiculed the plaintiff, who says she has being working as a model since 2001. “Did she think moaning and touching herself on camera was wholesome?” asked a New York Daily News reader.
But the suit argues the defendants are liable for editing out all the comedic elements of the original concept for the ad and releasing a commercial that is “entirely of a pornographic and/or sexually explicit or sexually titillating nature.”
|
UPDATE
In a May 8, 2008 ruling, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge denied Szul's motion to dismiss and its motion to compel the plaintiff to proceed under her legal name.
|
According to the suit, the plaintiff was told at the audition that the ad would be “of a comedic nature. The idea presented was that a shy average joe guy would get a beautiful woman and get her excited –- by placing a necklace on her neck.”
During the shoot, the director “directed Plaintiff to feign excitement while lying down ... so that Defendants could film the best possible piece of acting to complete the comedic storyline.”
New York's publicity rights law prohibits the use of a person's image "for advertising purposes" without the person's written consent. The plaintiff says she never signed a model release.
“This was a bait and switch,” her lawyer said. “She can live with a comedic spot that has a touch of sexiness at the end, but it's certainly not OK for her to be in something that's quasi-softcore porn.”
The way the ad was shot suggests the plaintiff is receiving oral sex. But once she agreed to be filmed feigning excitement, a model of her alleged experience should have known that there are few limits on creative license.
And if she was willing to accept a $200 modeling job, any damage to her professional reputation is not likely to be worth anything close to $5 million.
By Matthew Heller
1/5/08 
