Tamara Favazza Wins $5.77 Million vs. Girls Gone Wild, But Will She Get It?

Thumbnail image for girlsgonewildsororityorgy.jpg
The first of several films in which Favazza unwittingly appeared.
Tamara Favazza, formerly known as Jane Doe in court papers, won her appeal against Joe Francis' Girls Gone Wild empire for what she claimed was non-consensual use of her image in one Francis' videos, Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy 2

Favazza was only 20 years old when she went to Rum Jungle on Laclede's Landing the night a GGW crew was filming, way back in 2004. She was dancing for one of the cameras when a woman pulled down her shirt and exposed her breasts despite Favazza's stated unwillingness to do so. This brief footage ended up in several GGW DVDs, which Favazza learned of several years later through a friend of her husband. Her lack of consent -- both in the incident and in the use of the footage -- was the cornerstone of her case.

She lost her original jury trial against the film's production company, Mantra Films Inc. The producers claimed signs were posted throughout the club notifying people they would be filmed, which Favazza claimed not to have seen. In the end, the jury determined that her actions in the video (a blow-by-blow account described here) outweighed her testimony. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman in that trial, was told a Post-Dispatch reporter after the trial:
"Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."
Eventually she won the right to another trial, which recently ended her ordeal with a decision in her favor -- and $5.77 million in damages. Of course, this being the American legal system, Girls Gone Wild's attorney in the case already announced their intent to appeal.

It's eight years after the incident, more than two years since the case entered the court system, and we have a victory for both sides, and yet no final resolution. Even if Favazza wins this next appeal, she may not get the money. One of Mantra Films' attorneys in this case, Brian Rayment, filed his own suit against the company for nonpayment of legal fees in the sum of $300,000.

My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
STLHome
STLHome

NOTE: There is a website that helps break this issue down. She was not attacked. If you want to know... First, in the link below, you can see that she pulls down her top, exposing most of her breast for the camera. She is dancing, wearing a very skimpy party outfit top and looking at the camera. Her own hand pulls down her top enough to expose her breast.  She is (at age 20, drinking age is 21) holding a big cocktail that appears to be a double (note double cups, a rule in most St. Louis bars like this.) Run Jungle was a wild dance club. She knows what is going on.  She has a very good bronze tan, wearing a low-cut pink top and dancing for the camera. Someone, after she exposed her breast herself, pulled her top down further. It may have been a friend or outsider--but there is another woman who pulls her top  This person who did this is the guilty party. At that point, she (Tamara) reacts poorly and is upset that it went too far. This is the basis for her lawsuit. 

HEY: Most of us had some silly nights out in college. Unfortunately, one of her silly nights out was caught on film. She regrets it. Her husband and family are bothered. But, as the comments in the links below and others say... she looks great. She is tan, she exposes herself, she's having a great time and it came back to really bother her as an adult. Is this a real lawsuit? Maybe against the person who helped her pull her top town.

 

Lesson to all college kids in the age of "everything is on camera." 

 

http://i.imgur.com/v6wpl.jpg

 

Michael Wilding
Michael Wilding

If she wants to see any kind of money like that, she's going to have to start making her own DVD's.  She won't get any from the settlement.

Ted_Fontenot
Ted_Fontenot

Six million dollars?  That has to be some pretty special tits.

Danielle Russell
Danielle Russell

She made it clear she did not want to be exposed. It does not matter whether she had a bra on or not. Sending someone over to pull her top down was WRONG!!!

KittyLitterKing
KittyLitterKing

It was a default judgment, and no one showed up for the defendant.  The money is long gone, and she's never going to see a dime of it.  Good luck.

Stlgirl
Stlgirl

This ran today in the Post-Dispatch. Now you're just rewriting their reporters' stories and passing them off as your own? Very ethical.

Hata1
Hata1

 welcome to RFT....if its a serious stories it was either lifted from a the PD or written by the parent company VV

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...