I am afraid that this post crosses the line. Let me explain:

Back in the late 60's, Stern, Walter& Simmons, an advertising agency, prepared a presentation as part of a successful effort to obtain the account of the United States Suzuki Motorcycle Corporation. The presentation included a photograph of two female models seated on a Suzuki Motorcycle on which was superimposed the legend "You Get More Nookie on a Suzuki." This photograph was distributed to certain officers and agents of the prospective client. A copy of the print was somehow obtained by a California firm who solicited Suzuki dealers to purchase the picture for advertising purposes and for sale to the public.

As a result of these facts the two models who posed for the photograph (who were of age, professional models, and each signed a full release) brought suits against Stern, Walter & Simmons alleging that the publication of the photograph with the inscription tended to expose them to public contempt and disgrace, tended to injure their reputation and show a want of chastity and to impeach their honesty, integrity and virtue "by reason of its smutty and pornographic implication and innuendoes; all of which conduct of the defendants was done in deliberate and malicious violation of [their] right of privacy."

The models won.

Now for the question of the day. How do you think you might come out should the young lady in your post find out about your posting of her image on the internet, along with your nasty little title and comments? Right now, the smartest thing you can do is to run, don't walk, to the UHH Administrator and have them delete this post.

Sadly, this is not a joke. The Suzuki case is not only real, it is one of the foundation cases on damages in cases of defamation and privacy right violations. In addition, one of the factors considered when looking at the amount of damages is the nature of the 'publication".

Something posted on a cork bulletin board in a dorm is one thing, while a full page ad in a magazine with a national circulation is quite another matter. I don't see members of a jury, all being reasonable prudent people, having any problem finding this posted image, together with the posted caption and comments, easily coming within the holding of the noted Suzuki case. I almost mentioned to you the very same thing about those people in the commercials. I do agree with the models and their lawsuit. They were led to believe they were doing one thing and it was totally twisted around. Kind of like the Inquirer.

Edit: The issue here is not whether the lady in question will or will not bring a civil action. The tight question, for everyone to wrap their minds around, is that should she elect to bring a civil action. . .she would have a solid case. While I am not a prude, and like a good joke as much as most people; however, I am not going to put myself at risk for the sake of off-color comments.

Too suggest that the prime time running of ads for Trojan Vibrators in some way is mitigating here is really the best joke of all. The women in those commercials know what they are doing, are professional actresses, are paid for their work, and have signed releases. No one watching these commercials think that the women making them are being blind-sided, taken advantaged of, or that they have no idea what the product is that is being tied to their image.