You have to be pretty brave to volunteer for one of those Parents TV things or anything that is going to involve you getting partially naked for bunches of people on television and in hospital classrooms all over the world. Back in 2010, Mary Ann Sahoury did just that. She agreed to demonstrate breast-feeding techniques with her one month old daughter for a video. She didn't get paid. She just did it to be nice. When she finished her filming she was asked to sign a piece of paper. She didn't read it. The piece of paper was a release. Mary thought only her first name would be used and only shown on parents TV. A few months later she Googled herself and saw her naked image everywhere. On YouTube and even used in porn where people had spliced her in with another actress. Oh, and her first and last name were used and her daughter's name also gets linked to porn sites now. naturally she is suing and I hope she wins.
Well now I'm all curious about how they used her breastfeeding her daughter in a porn. THANKS.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't read the piece of paper and just believed the world was a wonderful place. I really don't feel bad for her. She should have known better. Yeah, I get it - she was doing good and it bit her on the ass.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't read the release before signing it? I don't see that she has a case here.
ReplyDeleteAnd heads-up to everyone. NEVER agree to naked or partially naked pictures, unless you don't mind your photos being public. It is just too easy for Photoshoppers or angry exes to distribute them. Seriously, folks...it's not hard to figure this out.
Really!! Remember vanessa williams??
DeleteHow horrifying. I get that people are in to almost anything, but couldn't they simulate it for a porn tape?
ReplyDeleteWHAT?!?!? This is insane...Im sure the release stated that Parents TV could use her name, likeness & image for their company purposes (ie tv, website etc) but never would anyone think that by signing the release, they were consenting to use themselves for porn. Also, her minor daughter's name & likeness are out there and unless Parents TV has the consent of both parents, they had no right to use her image, name, likeness, etc...
ReplyDeleteThis is such a shame, bc when I had my son the lactation specialist brought a video like that to help me with the latching technique & it allowed me to be able to properly breast feed my son. Without the visual aid, I don't think I would have been able to identify the correct way he should have been latching on. This is such a sick world we live in
I wonder if a third party stole the images from the company she signed her rights to. Maybe she's suing the approved company for not protecting the images and her name better.
ReplyDeleteI agree she was a bit of a dum dum to sign a release that featured her naked body parts and her newborn daughter without reading it first.
ReplyDeleteStill hope she wins though.
I feel bad for her, but that was so stupid not to read the release.
ReplyDeleteAwful.
ReplyDeleteI read the full story. The company agreed to only out it in the parent TV videos. That got put onto youTUBE. Which is the dumbest thing they could have done. For there it was taken spliced up an put on Porntube and all those other sites. Yes she didn't read the contract. But she did have a verbal agreement. The women who made the video even feel terrible. It's no ones fault other then the sick men out there. All men are not sick. Just some.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the typos! The women who made the video feels Terrible as well.
DeleteThis is why it doesn't pay to be a good person. When you do something good, it's used against you, and then complete strangers call you stupid who have no reason to be upset before knowing the entire story.
ReplyDeleteOral agreements are trumped by written contracts. I think she's screwed.
ReplyDeleteAs a breastfeeding mom, this is just abhorrent to me. No good deed goes unpunished.
ReplyDeleteAs a breastfeeding mom, this is just abhorrent to me. No good deed goes unpunished.
ReplyDeleteAs a breastfeeding mom, this is just abhorrent to me. No good deed goes unpunished.
ReplyDeleteNo good deed goes unpunished, as they say....and then there are always plenty of people to remind one of it......
ReplyDelete@Layna Day - normally I would say you are a pessimist, but I happen to know you are 100% completely correct...being a good person often turns out to be not good at all.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the company was honest and the release stated exactly what the company verbally represented to her??
ReplyDeleteThis is of course, disturbing.
A child is in a video being used as fetish/adult porn. Surely thats against the law? Doesn't that qualify as kiddie porn? And the child is identified. No telling who is watching that...
@Cecilia ooh, interesting thought re: child porn. It seems to me the law only applies to minors engaged in sexual conduct, which obvs the baby wasn't. But it seems really wrong to let a real baby legally appear in porn, no matter what release was signed.
Delete@ Brenda: I'm kind of surprised by my growing pessimism. I try to think good of the world, but it's getting tougher to do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised some perv would use the video for sick kicks. But it's harsh to say "YOU'RE STUPID" when we don't know the entire story.
@Layna Day - I should have amended that to say "In a normal world I would say you are a pessimist".....and honey we are not living in a normal world anymore.
ReplyDeleteOr was it always like this and there just wasn't any social media exposing all the sickness.
Wow...people on this earth are sick. Like they wouldn't actually be able to find someone to do actual porn??? They had to go and ruin the reputation of an innocent mother? It's sad that there are people out there who try to constantly think up ways to expose innocent people for financial gain. Sick.
ReplyDeleteI have learned that you should consider all verbal aggrements as lies. If it isn't in writing, it doesn't count. And this is dealing with contractors and money, not nudity. She should have read her agreement.
ReplyDeleteWHY DON'T PEOPLE READ THE SHIT THEY SIGN?! I DON'T GET IT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteUnless the contract she signed said, "I agree that my name and likeness will be used for porn," I'm sure she has some kind of case. Get those bastards, girl!
ReplyDelete@g.strathmore - not to mention her CHILD was put in a porn film. That would trump it too
ReplyDeleteHah! I heavily negotiated the (no-pay) release for the TV movie based on my sister's memoir, and they basically wrote me out. Two sisters got played by at least B-listers. I got some unknown character actor from the place they were filming.
ReplyDeleteOf course I feel bad for her, however, ALWAYS READ BEFORE YOU SIGN.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I've long thought about posting a pic on my blog of my family taken this summer, which is a rare on of us four (it may happen like once every other year), BUT...we were hiking in the forest and had just got out from taking a dip, so even though we have shorts on, and backpacks, we are in our bathing suits. So, for me, and knowing just how much a problem child porn is, I have nixed the idea. Even though (as much as I botch about them) I am proud as sh*t of my fam....and would LOVe to post it, the sickness of ppl which prevails in our society, especially lurking behind computer screens, I just can't and I won't.
because truth be told, I've heard and know, that there are some pedophiles who can find the kid, search out where (say my blog) came from and if they had the hots for one of my kids, come to our neighborhood and wait for them. Kid's on order. It's really to that point...don't fool yourselves.
**scuse my typos. decipher
ReplyDeleteThis is just WRONG! I have talent sign releases all the time (and I do wish they read what they are signing but often don't). My releases do say that their likeness and image can be used any way deemed appropriate/necessary by the client. HOWEVER IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM does taking a breastfeeding mother translate to being used in PORN. I doubt the release said anything about THAT!
ReplyDeleteNow, someone said it was posted on youtube and someone above (I think) said it was cut and paste from there (which I don't understand either) but that is a different legality all the way around. SO SAD FOR HER AND HER BABY.
At first glance I thought that was OctoMom.
ReplyDeleteSnakeoiler care to share?
ReplyDelete@chopchop Same here....Where is OctoMom when somebody actually needs her?
ReplyDelete