T1B

jiminphilly wrote:http://www.polyaklawoffice.com/main.html
^
The scumbag lawyer who is trying to make money on her stupidity.

SEND AN EMAIL TO THE OFFICE USING THE FOLLOWING CONTACT FORM


First Name
Last Name
Tel. Number () -
Comments

KC Scott wrote:She's not suing beacuse she fell into the fountain.

She's going to sue (and probably win) beacuse mall security took that video, downloaded it and posted it on youtube where it went viral.

I'll expect the property management company will want to settle this pretty quick

jiminphilly wrote:Undisclosed settlement will equal a few coupons of free french fries at the food court.

Her attorney wrote:Why this happened, how this happened

KC Scott wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:Why b/c scumbag lawyer took time away from chasing an ambulance to try and shake out a settlement? It's not going anywhere.
Undisclosed settlement will equal a few coupons of free french fries at the food court.

The reason the mall would settle is that her perceived right of privacy as an individual is violated by that video from mall security cameras being posted by mall employees on youtube. Since she was not violating any laws (other than the laws of stupid) she has a right to privacy on the property of the mall.

Same situation if your wife was drinling a soda in the food court and dumped it on herself - you probably wouldn't want her to become an "internet star" from some mall cop who happened to be watching her on a PTZ and decided to post it to youtube.

-----------------

In the "Here's some fucking irony" dept - after fountain gal was on Good Morning America she went to court on felony theft charges:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fountain-falli ... d=12685189

KC Scott wrote:

smackaholic wrote: scott, you wanna link me up with the part of the video where they identify her. oh, yeah, that's right, they didn't. they just put up a long distance grainy video of somebody being a dumbfukk

Doesn't matter, your likeness is protected.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to undertand.

Why do you think anytime anyone is on TV, Movies etc. they have them sign waivers allowing them to use their likeness?

How exactly do you think the internet is different in that respect?

KC Scott wrote:I've tried to explain this as simplisticly as possible.

Your opinion is wrong.

Here is the legal definition

Perhaps if you read it you may understand what I've written

Screw_Michigan wrote:...he can't spend 30 fucking seconds with his head out of his phone.

Screw_Michigan wrote:..people have been burying their heads in phones for years now.

FUCK this bitch

War Wagon wrote:Maybe, but I've really just noticed it getting worse in the last year or so, at least in the flyover. It's almost like it's become a status symbol... Hey, look at me! I'm really fucking important and can't be bothered by talking to this live person standing right in front of me...

If anybody reading this is one of those people, and you know who you are... GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Screw_Michigan wrote:I have more than enjoyed being able to catch up on news while waiting for trains and waiting for shit in general.

88 wrote:

Think people. Think.

War Wagon wrote:pretty much an epidemic in everyday life. At work, at play, you name it. People get so absorbed with their blackberry or whatever, they just block out the world.

It's their escape from reality, I guess, but it's pretty fucking annoying when you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is constantly looking at and fingering their handheld device like that is the center of their universe and everything and everyone else around them is just a peripheral distraction.

yeah, fuck that guy.

Roach wrote:The lawyer looks a Little like jsc . . .

Wonder if he hunts or just cooks at the duck club.

Screw_Michigan wrote:A married couple I am friends with from my alumni group live down my street and have friends over to watch Hoarders. I prefer Intervention ,but anyway. So I stop over there last week during the national title game (halftime only) to hang out during the season finale. This married couple is both 25. There's about 15 people in this 1BR apartment, all the same age. All but FUCKING TWO have their heads buried in their phone twittering every breath they take. The only ones? Me and this wife, just shooting the shit in the kitchen.

88 wrote:

KC Scott wrote:But this video was shot in the public area of a mall.

KC Scott wrote:

88 wrote:She has no case. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in a public place:

The person/company who took the film of her fall can do anything it wants with it, including loading it on youtube.com.

The employees who loaded the security video on youtube.com likely violated their own company's policies and may be subject to discipline.

Sorry Counselor - I'll have to disagree.

I've had multiple clients in the last 5 years that had this exact incident occur (security video posted on youtube) - each time this came up they were told by legal there was an absolute case should the "anonymous" customer come forward and file suit

What would her claim be? They didn't use her likeness or name to promote their business. It is not unlawful to post a video of someone humiliating themself in public

According to law

In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)

I'm not saying I agree - only that this is the standard the Mall ownership will be held against

Martyred wrote:

88 wrote:

KC Scott wrote:But this video was shot in the public area of a mall.

AKA - private property

mvscal wrote:
So? What part of no expectation of privacy in a public place are you struggling to comprehend?

KC Scott wrote:aforementioned

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote:Except that a private corporation did not make or distribute that film and the location was not private in any sense of the term that you believe it to be.

You are totally and unequivocally wrong.
A private entity did make the video recording.
An employee of that entity did allow that video to be released for mass consumption.
The private entity is responsible for the actions of its employee.

There will be no lawsuit.

Link?

If she chooses not to press forward beacuse of her own lucid past, that has nothing to do with the aforementioned facts of this incident.

KC Scott wrote:Common law protects these distinct privacy interests by imposing civil liability upon anyone who publicizes private facts; besmirches some-one's reputation; profits from another's name, likeness, or ideas; or otherwise intrudes upon an individual's private affairs. Common-law protection of privacy interests is broader than Title III because it is not limited to wiretapping and bugging but extends to photographic and video surveillance as well. Thus, video surveillance of restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms may give rise to a claim for invasion of privacy under common law but not under Title III.

At the same time, common law is narrower than Title III because liability is only established by proof that the published information was sufficiently private to cause outrage, mental suffering, shame, or humiliation in a person of ordinary sensibilities. Title III creates liability for any nonconsensual, intentional disclosure of electronically intercepted information, thus establishing a much lower threshold. For example, a newspaper would not be liable under the common-law invasion-of-privacy doctrine for accurately reporting that someone had engaged in criminal conduct. However, the nonconsensual, electronic interception of such information would give rise to liability under Title III.

---------------------------

KC Scott wrote:Dins - I'm sure with your vast experience in all matters of all matters you'll enlighten us with your legal interpretation of this?

Dinsdale wrote:
But by all means, link us up to where anyone gained profit from the video?