Her Bad. They're Sued.
Jose Martinez writes for the New York Daily News of a model suing a jeweler for a web video ad they put her in:
A Westchester model who donned sexy lingerie and moaned in delight for a diamond dealer's online ad is suing because the video is more G-string than G-rated.The unidentified beauty has slapped Szul Jewelry Inc. with a $5 million suit on grounds it conned her into appearing in the ad. Court papers say the spot is set to "bump-and-grind" music and has "a decidedly pornographic look, feel and sound."
"This was a bait and switch," her lawyer, Kevin Mulhearn, said of the ad, which has been viewed more 10,000 times on YouTube.
"She can live with a comedic spot that has a touch of sexiness at the end, but it's certainly not okay for her to be in something that's quasi-soft-core porn."
The 35-second "Rock Her World" spot features the model rubbing her teal teddy and purring with pleasure to the hard-grinding sounds of a guitar as the slogan, "Jewelry works every time" pops up onscreen.
The 37-year-old woman, identified in Manhattan court papers as the host of a national cable network program, contends she expected a comedic bit about a "shy average Joe guy" who lures a beautiful woman by giving her a diamond necklace.
..."She was aghast, appalled and extremely angry when she saw the ad," Mulhearn said. "She got used and exploited."
...The ad, which netted the recently married model $200, could have ugly consequences because she's always been careful to project a wholesome image, Mulhearn said.
"She doesn't want to be associated with this at all," Mulhearn said.
And now, without further ado, the ad:
Bait and switch, huh? Used and exploited, huh? That's what all that moaning says to me, too.
It is possible that they had a storyline that changed after they shot the commercial. Maybe the comedy didn't quite play. As for the idea that they had to fool her to be in this thing -- and for $200 whole dollars -- come on. Like their aren't thousands upon thousands of actress/model/spokeswaitresses who'd push her in front of a bus to take her place for free.
The part I love most is how shocked the lawyer is making her out to be for appearing in something that's "quasi-soft-core porn."
Did the director say, "Now just sit in this brightly lit kitchen in your housedress and hand little Billy a plate of cookies? And then, did he video-trick her head onto the shoulders and body of a woman who looks, acts, and sounds like some guy is going down on her?
Alrighty then.
Somehow, I think when you exhibit bad judgment, it isn't your moment to make somebody else pay.
wait, now you have to buy jewelry to get her to let YOU go down on HER?
what is the world coming to?
jody at January 4, 2008 3:27 AM
Videos gone, I feel cheated
lujlp at January 4, 2008 4:09 AM
Now thats odd, I can get the vidoe from the comments page, but not the blog page
lujlp at January 4, 2008 4:17 AM
I can see the point about the story possibly being edited out, but a 5 million dollar apology!!! Yeah right, she is obviously way overstating her "value". She did a very bad job of promoting the product anyway, because she acted like what was going on down below was more exciting than the jewelery on her neck. Regardless of what the punch line is - how do you get to the point of being on a silky bed in lingerie if you are trying to project a wholesome image? I would have paid her $50 for that quasi-crap.
kbling at January 4, 2008 6:26 AM
Video's still here on mine.
If they didn't have her sign a release they're pretty stupid.
A wise actor once told me never to let anyone film or tape anything of you that you don't want them to use. They will use it.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2008 6:55 AM
I once told a joke on tape to be used as a filler between shots of half-naked young women in a Playboy video. The release the producer had me sign looked just about iron-clad to me.
The first person to mention the video to me after it came out was--get this--my sister! My nephew had recorded it from the Playboy channel and showed my part to his mother. I asked, "Did I disgrace the family?" and she said, "No, it was a good story." A relief. But if she had been scandalized, I would have just had to bear the shame, having signed that release. So Amy, you're right that "If they didn't have her sign a release they're pretty stupid."
I'm still disappointed that the Playboy crew taped the pretty young women in other sessions. The only other performers present at mine were two fully clothed middle-aged guys who signed on, like me, to tell stories.
Axman at January 4, 2008 7:38 AM
I came upon this story on Fark.com, a different article. Here's the link they gave:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Models-Moaning-Lawsuit.php
That article made it clear to me that she didn't sign the release form to use her image. The whole thing sounds like she didn't sign the form (either on purpose or accident) and then realized she could sue the company and win. So, yeah, her goal wasn't so much to protect her "G-rated image" as because she knew she actually had a case she could win. Another situation in which someone is going to make their living off a lawsuit and not, you know, actually work or anything.
CornerDemon at January 4, 2008 8:42 AM
Uh, wow. I can't watch it with sound (I'm at work right now) but even muted that looks like she's in the middle of a full orgasm. Especially the part at the end where she's... bouncing.
What the jewelry company did was kind of sleazy if her story is true, but honestly the fault here is all hers. The main fault of the jewelry company was not making her sign anything. If she genuinely wanted to portray a "wholesome image" she really shouldn't simulate sex on camera. Frankly, if she's taking $200 acting jobs then she really didn't have an image to portray yet. Of course, she does now...
Bad Kitty at January 4, 2008 9:29 AM
Also, let's know her name. I find the fact that she isn't identified ridiculous.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2008 9:43 AM
I would have paid her $50 for that quasi-crap.
-kbling
I hope your joking for $25 you can get 1000 times the amount of that quasi crap and get it as hard core crap
lujlp at January 4, 2008 10:53 AM
I’m not sure what she is selling, but I’d like to know where to sign up.
Roger at January 4, 2008 11:16 AM
She's much more convincing than Meg Ryan, portrayer of the lamest fake orgasm in human history.
DaveG at January 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Hot chick, stupid commercial. I'd be more likely to respond to two Hassidic guys yelling Shalom!!!! into their cell phones if I were in the market for diamonds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwhc-JDEVUc
eric at January 4, 2008 12:35 PM
wait, now you have to buy jewelry to get her to let YOU go down on HER?
No, he's just very short.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Hell, I'll buy her a pair of earrings!
Bikerken at January 6, 2008 9:30 PM
Leave a comment