Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wild Party Girls' video maker must pay SWT student
Austin American-Statesman | 2-28-02 | By Jeremy Schwartz

Posted on 02/28/2002 2:54:24 PM PST by Temple Owl

Wild Party Girls' video maker must pay SWT student

$5 million awarded to topless young woman see in humiliating TV ads

By Jeremy Schwartz

American-Statesman Staff

SAN MARCOS -- Southwest Texas State University student Amber Kulhanek went to spring break in 2000 on South Padre Island for her 21st birthday and ended up taking off her shirt at a wet T-shirt contest in Mexico.

A few months later Kulhanek saw herself in national ads for a "Wild Party Girls" video on the E! cable network, a red strip proclaiming "Too hot for TV" stamped across her naked breasts. Kulhanek, now a senior, said she was mortified when friends and relatives saw the ad and strangers began asking her to take her top off.

Claiming she had been targeted by the video's makers, who she said plied her with alcohol at a Matamoros bar, Kulhanek sued E! and the Florida-based Arco Media Group Inc. for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

On Wednesday morning, Kulhanek won what her lawyer says is the first judgment of its kind against the video makers and earned a $5 million default judgment in the 22nd District Court. Lawyers for Arco Media never officially responded to the lawsuit and could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Videos such as "Wild Party Girls Spring Break Uncensored" are sold by several companies through late night TV ads and the Internet and often feature drunken college women exposing themselves at Mardi Gras and spring break celebrations.

Kulhanek's lawyer, David Sergi, said Arco Media representatives conspired with bartenders to get pretty young women to drink alcohol and convince them to enter wet T-shirt contests. "We're hoping this sends a message to these pariahs that they can't booze (the women) up . . . so they really can't give consent," Sergi said. "It's really like rape."

Kulhanek, who never signed a consent form, said she couldn't believe it when she saw herself on television. "I was just really shocked and humiliated," she said. "I just really hope they can learn to leave people alone."

Sergi said Kulhanek was put in a barbershop type chair where liquor was poured down her throat.

"Before she knew it, she was dead drunk," he said. "The people from Arco were egging her on to enter the wet T-shirt contest. The next thing she knew she was in front of a bunch of people with her shirt off."

Sergi said that although Kulhanek did not end up in the actual video, her image was in ads that ran for several month on E! and on the "Wild Party Girls" Internet site, where she could be found uncensored in the members section. The ads and the Internet picture have since been removed.

According to court documents, Kulhanek withdrew from classes at SWT in the fall of 2000 and suffered from insomnia as a result of the ads. Sergi said she has re-enrolled and is set to graduate this spring.

Kulhanek will continue her lawsuit against E!, which she claims worked with Arco Media to target young women and shared revenue from the tapes. E! lawyer Dale Jefferson said the entertainment network simply sold airtime to Arco Media. "Do we have a duty to censor advertisements wholly produced by third parties? We believe the legal answer to that legal question is no," he said.

Wednesday's default judgment calls for Kulhanek to receive $2.5 million for emotional distress, $2.5 million for her privacy claim and $10,000 in attorney's fees. Sergi said Kulhanek plans to donate part of her judgment to a women's shelter.

Sergi said he believes the judgment is the first against the makers of videos with nude college women.

In September, a Florida State University student who bared her breasts at Mardi Gras sued the makers of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series claiming invasion of privacy.

A lawyer for the video producers told The Associated Press that privacy protection does not extend to people who take their clothes off in public and especially not at large events where many people have video cameras.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
There's 15 minute of fame plus $5 million. Not bad for a college girl. Ah Forever Amber!
1 posted on 02/28/2002 2:54:24 PM PST by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Amber
2 posted on 02/28/2002 2:57:58 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Nah, that Nadler's twin sister.
3 posted on 02/28/2002 2:58:43 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
"We're hoping this sends a message to these pariahs that they can't booze (the women) up . . . so they really can't give consent

Wait a minute. She's in a public place and takes her top off. Doesn't anyone have the right to take pictures? Does the law require anyone who is videotaped to be paid for the tape to become public and/or must give permission? Or is it the fact that someone is making money from the tape? Isn't she responsible for getting drunk?

4 posted on 02/28/2002 2:59:50 PM PST by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: DallasDeb
According to law, woman can't consent while under the influence, so that any sex with a drunk women is by definition rape. I guess the same applies here.
6 posted on 02/28/2002 3:03:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Can it apply if they're in Mexico?
7 posted on 02/28/2002 3:05:43 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
I have no idea. I don't know if you can consent to anythin
8 posted on 02/28/2002 3:09:43 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: mackattack
He used her image to sell videos. She is intitled to a cut of the proceeds.

But that's not her argument:

Wednesday's default judgment calls for Kulhanek to receive $2.5 million for emotional distress, $2.5 million for her privacy claim and $10,000 in attorney's fees. Sergi said Kulhanek plans to donate part of her judgment to a women's shelter.

Sound to me like she's just embarrassed her relatives know how she acts now.

10 posted on 02/28/2002 3:13:32 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: texaggie79; dead; tennessee_bob; one_particular_harbour
-
12 posted on 02/28/2002 3:16:34 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
I'll never forget her.

The deep and alarming folds of her skin moved in AFSCME time, like two tectonic plates or a sea slug mating dance in super-slo motion. My feelings and thoughts were clear: confusion, nausea and exit strategy.

If you ever stand her up could you give her a little shake and see if my David Hasselhoff money clip falls out from somewhere?.

13 posted on 02/28/2002 3:17:41 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mackattack
You're not disagreeing with me then. She shouldn't have gotten the money with the "emotional distress" argument.
14 posted on 02/28/2002 3:18:00 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
She took off her top in public, at Spring break, with video cameras rolling.

Yeah, I can see the invasion of privacy...

15 posted on 02/28/2002 3:20:17 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"The Human Couch."
16 posted on 02/28/2002 3:21:22 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
...any sex with a drunk women is by definition rape.

WHOOOOAAAAAA!!!!! You got a link to some statute???? Gholly, that's pretty broad. And, not just with pretty broads, either.

17 posted on 02/28/2002 3:22:33 PM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
she has to collect.
18 posted on 02/28/2002 3:22:40 PM PST by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: mackattack
Ah, I see.
20 posted on 02/28/2002 3:24:17 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Well the Teddy Kennedy rule strikes again, “I get drunk and I’m not responsible for my actions”.
21 posted on 02/28/2002 3:25:02 PM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Lawyers for Arco Media never officially responded to the lawsuit and could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Dumb move. But I expect this will get overturned on appeal.

22 posted on 02/28/2002 3:25:22 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
This should have been bounced out of court.
23 posted on 02/28/2002 3:25:27 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
He he Yep! ;^)

I've crunched numbers and broken down tape and sacrificed livestock to my Pagan Gods... and I don't think "The Human Couch" is a complimentary nickname!

24 posted on 02/28/2002 3:26:38 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
brb, making reservations for Matamoros ...
25 posted on 02/28/2002 3:26:38 PM PST by fnord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Kulhanek, who never signed a consent form, said she couldn't believe it when she saw herself on television. "I was just really shocked and humiliated," she said.

Rrrrrrright, sure you were. Especially when you pulled off your top in front of strangers...
26 posted on 02/28/2002 3:27:10 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Oh ... look for "Knight Rider" Hasselhoff ...
27 posted on 02/28/2002 3:29:18 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty;whyisatexasgirlinpa
You are a very sick man!
28 posted on 02/28/2002 3:30:56 PM PST by SeeRushToldU_So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Lawyers for Arco Media never officially responded to the lawsuit and could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Default judgement.
Bye-bye. They're gone baby. Flyin like a bird.
Hope she doesn't get her panties in a knot waitin to collect.

29 posted on 02/28/2002 3:32:32 PM PST by gwynapnudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
When I was young I remember my mom warning me, "Fool's names, like fool's faces, always appear in public places." This is a classic example of what she warned me about.
30 posted on 02/28/2002 3:32:56 PM PST by waxhaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
"We're hoping this sends a message to these pariahs that they can't booze (the women) up . . . so they really can't give consent," Sergi said. "It's really like rape."

Hahahahahahahah!!!!!

What a heaping load of B.S... Most of the girls in those videos are sorority sluts. This one just happens to be $5M richer...

31 posted on 02/28/2002 3:33:01 PM PST by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Sergi said Kulhanek was put in a barbershop type chair where liquor was poured down her throat.

Yeah, that's what they do in Mexican bars... I've been to T.J... They do that to men too. Hold your head back while blowing a whistle and pouring tequila down your throat. Then you get the bill.

32 posted on 02/28/2002 3:34:13 PM PST by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Strangely, this is pretty low on my own list of concerns in this world......
33 posted on 02/28/2002 3:35:33 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
The ho's getting paid mad money yo!
34 posted on 02/28/2002 3:37:26 PM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeRushToldU_So
How much would YOU pay for a rack like that???? Gotta be 159 EEEE, at least!!
35 posted on 02/28/2002 3:38:09 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
Does the law require anyone who is videotaped to be paid for the tape to become public and/or must give permission

I think that you have to get permission to broadcast/sell it. I remember hearing that the cops show always had to get the crooks to sign off in order to show their faces.

36 posted on 02/28/2002 3:40:05 PM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
is this her? http://www.universitystar.com/images/00fall/mugs/Kulhanek.gif
37 posted on 02/28/2002 3:41:54 PM PST by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Study: Girls Going 20% Less Wild

WASHINGTON, DC (DPI) - In a revelation sending shockwaves throughout college campuses across the country, the occurrence of girls gone wild has dropped by a shocking 20 percent since September 11, a new report concluded. The report, a project of a non-profit coalition, notes severe reductions in flashing and jiggling among drunken sorority girls. Bush Administration officials, upon hearing of the report, called for a $5-billion bailout for the voyeur-camera industry, and issued a statement calling upon hot wild coeds to do their part to return the nation to its pre-attack free-for-all. Despite the recent drop, experts expect a slight increase in girls going wild 47 days before the first Sunday after the Spring Equinox.

(Reported by Stuart Johnson)

38 posted on 02/28/2002 3:42:37 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwynapnudd
Hope she doesn't get her panties in a knot waitin to collect.

This is easy. The corporation sued likely has no assets. They will just declare bankrupcy. I can't imagine that she will ever get a penny from the suit. I expect it is just PR. As for 'this is just like rape' -- LOL!

39 posted on 02/28/2002 3:47:35 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
"Every single one of those jurors need to be neutralized so noone will ever see them again ... let's put them on the cast of Saturday Night Live."

If a trial lawyer can find enough fat wobbling black women employed at either "San Marcos University" the "San Marcos Post office", the "City of San Marcos", the county of "San Marcos", the "San Marcos school district", and three lesbian professors from San Marcos University's MSHGLTTBNKW Studies Department.

40 posted on 02/28/2002 3:48:13 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
You gotta be kiddin' me. That's not Amber. That's a well-fed, shaved, Sharpey with lipstick and a blond wig. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, ya know.

Congressman Billybob

41 posted on 02/28/2002 4:18:17 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
In answer to your question - YES!

When those pictures are used commercially without the consent of the persons in them, the folks in the pictures are entitled to damages, et al. You can't just use folks without paying them for their labor, and in this case, ....... well, it could be called labor.

42 posted on 02/28/2002 4:19:01 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
AAAAHHHHH!!!! MY EYES!! Sheesh! Don't do that!

Of course, it could have been worse.

43 posted on 02/28/2002 4:27:36 PM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: mackattack
He used her image to sell videos. She is intitled to a cut of the proceeds.

Not necessarily. I don't know about Texas law, but in most places, pictures taken in public places need no releases. They are the sole property of the photographer. Subjects in the photos are thus not entitled to any compensation. In fact, I'm not even sure that Texas law applies here. The pictures were taken in Mexico.

Bottom line: She got drunk. She got stupid. She got so stupid that she started shaking her hoohaws around the bar. She got caught. Now she's steamed.

45 posted on 02/28/2002 4:31:27 PM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: muawiyah
So that would mean that every one in the picture frame shown would also be entitled to a similar settlement. And surely there were other examples featured in the advertisments.
47 posted on 02/28/2002 4:32:51 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mackattack
No. Now she thinks she's rich. This will get tossed on appeal.
48 posted on 02/28/2002 4:34:07 PM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Redcloak
pictures taken in public places need no releases. They are the sole property of the photographer.

Yup. Most likely. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. And she was taking her shirt off. This case gets tossed on appeal.
50 posted on 02/28/2002 4:40:51 PM PST by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson