Amazing Race Sued in Tansania for 2004 filming
DD
Arusha Times (Arusha)
5 May 2007
Posted to the web 6 May 2007
Staff Reporter
Arusha
Not often does the giant American broadcasting corporation CBS cover
Arusha, but when it stopped by in 2004 at the Kilimanjaro International
Airport (KIA) it left behind a US Dollars 2 million civil suit.
CBS Broadcasting Inc. based in Los Angeles in California were on a tour
of filming their popular documentary "The Amazing Race," only to discover
later that what they did at KIA attracted among others, a civil case.
Africa 2007
A resident of Arusha, Stella Mwanyika claims that her right to privacy
was infringed during the filming of "The Amazing Race" sometime in 2004.
Through her advocates, Maira and Company Advocates of Dar es Salaam and
W. A. L. Mirambo and Company Advocates of Arusha, Ms Mwanyika, the
Plaintiff, is claiming damages amounting to about US Dollars 2 million.
According to a plaint filed at the High Court of Tanzania, Arusha
District Registry and labeled Civil Case No. 7 of 2006 the defendant had
"without any lawful cause infringed the fundamental human rights of the
Plaintiff." The Plaintiff is employed as a ground hostess at KIA.
Particulars of the submission include: Taking her photographs without her
consent and against her will and amidst her protest; publishing the said
photographs without her consent and against her will; and broadcasting
the documentary "The Amazing Race" without her consent or knowledge.
"By reason of matters aforesaid, the Plaintiff has suffered loss and
damage to feelings and dignity and likely to suffer further loss and
damage," the plaint reads.
Apart from special and general damages, the Plaintiff is claiming
aggravated and exemplary damages in view of "the fact that the Defendants
gained profits from the said publishing and broadcasting worldwide."
The plaintiff also prays for an injunction to restrain the Defendants
from broadcasting the programme known as "The Amazing Race".
But to the Defendant, the inclusion of Ms Mwanyika's images in the
program did not constitute a valid cause of action against CBS.
Responding on behalf of CBS, REX Attorneys of Dar es Salaam (Merging
Maajar, Rwechungura, Nguluma {Advocates} & Epitome Advocates) the
attorneys claim that, "the raw footage we have reviewed does not include
your client's refusal to be tapped.
Relevant Links
East Africa
Tanzania
United States, Canada and Africa
Arts, Culture and Entertainment
"Instead, it shows her staring directly into the lens of at least one of
the production crew's very large and visible cameras without any
objection and also smiling and acknowledging the camera.
"She among other things, asked whether she could get a copy of the tape
for herself ... all of which amount to a very clear implicit consent for
the program to tape and use her image."
Accordingly, the attorneys concluded, CBS will not agree to meet the
demand to pay "your client" that amount of money. Hearing of the case is
scheduled for May 31, this year.
V&S
--
TAR Post Show Chat | http://www.geocities.com/sunflowers_petal
Kill Bill
> LOL. They deserve compensation but only for having to deal with Colin.
Interesting thing about TAR.. I noticed that more and more peoples faces
are now blurd out, leading me to believe that previous TAR versions
didn't really care about if they got consent or not from these other
countries, but now they are thinking about it more and more due to these
law suits.
-bill
madams53
"Kill Bill" <kill...@goblowme.com> wrote in message
news:TVo%h.273$y_7...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Yes, well, when you realize that some people's dignity is evidently worth 2
million dollars, I suppose you do get more careful. I wonder if her family
or friends ever pointed out that she would look like more of a fool by
starting this lawsuit, then she possibly could have in the original taping?
I am quite certain her lawyer never did. She should sue HIM for contributing
to the loss of her dignity. I also thought it was interesting that they
referred to TAR as a documentary. I suspect they did that so that they could
act like each installment is part of the offending taping,and that every
time they broadcast any installment, there is a danger that they will use
some of the offensive tape of her. I wish Judge Judy would be the judge!
She would chew this woman up and spit her out!
--
madamS
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill
>
Obveeus
"madams53" <mada...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> I am quite certain her lawyer never did. She should sue HIM for
> contributing to the loss of her dignity. I also thought it was interesting
> that they referred to TAR as a documentary. I suspect they did that so
> that they could act like each installment is part of the offending
> taping,and that every time they broadcast any installment, there is a
> danger that they will use some of the offensive tape of her.
While I don't think anyone deserves millions for being shown on TV for 5
seconds without their permission, I am dismayed to hear that TAR apparently
doesn't get signed releases from every person they show on TV. That is a
big 'no no' and puts TAR in the same category as the 'Girl Gone Wild'
idiots. This show is entertainment. If people don't sign releases, then
you basically have to blur out their face, especially people that you have
speaking on camera without their permission. It is not required for people
to put their hand in front of their face and scream for you to stop filming.
The responsibility lies on the person with the camera to get the release or
they should not use the footage.
Barbara L Sherrill
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f1lpc6$95m$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Did they not get the permission or is that what the woman is claiming. I
think someone found a quick way to make a fast buck and something tells me
she is not going to win. It's hard to win when there are corporate lawyers
with very, very deep pockets to back them up.
Obveeus
"Barbara L Sherrill" <barbaral...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Did they not get the permission or is that what the woman is claiming. I
> think someone found a quick way to make a fast buck and something tells me
> she is not going to win. It's hard to win when there are corporate
> lawyers with very, very deep pockets to back them up.
If they showed her face and they don't have her signed release, they will
lose. It actually isn't 'hard to win' against big corporations. The big
corporations make out of court settlements to people all the time. She
won't get millions, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if she got a year's
salary out of this nuisance lawsuit. IMO, the TAR lawyers have already made
a mistake simply by letting the case get this far. Now, the word is in the
news that TAR can't film you just because they want to and many more people
will be looking for the same opportunity.
robert underhill
"Barbara L Sherrill" <barbaral...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The lawsuit is in a third world country and since the plaintiff is
Tanzanian and CBS is not, the court will most likely rule for the
Tanzanian. Or, whichever party has the best political connections or
gives the judge the largest bribe will win.
--
Bob Underhill
Delete everything in CAPS to reply by email
madams53
"robert underhill" <runde...@NOJUNKmail.sdsu.edu> wrote in message
news:runderhill-8AD9C...@gondor.sdsu.edu...
> In article <N3E%h.730$LR5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Barbara L Sherrill" <barbaral...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:f1lpc6$95m$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> >
snip
>>> The lawsuit is in a third world country and since the plaintiff is
> Tanzanian and CBS is not, the court will most likely rule for the
> Tanzanian. Or, whichever party has the best political connections or
> gives the judge the largest bribe will win.
I'm not going to say you are wrong,because I have no idea,but the assumption
that Tanzanian justice is slanted is sad. Would you also assume that it
would go the other way if the country the lawsuit was in was the U.S. and
and the nationalities of the principals was reversed?
Barbara L Sherrill
"madams53" <mada...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:ajO%h.12811$TD3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
They may think twice on being crooked...They could lose a lot more than
CBS..... It could scare away movies and such from filming there.....
Seerialmom
News people don't get signed releases for all those clowns that make
faces behind the reporters heads. No, it's just presumed you know who
is taping and that you'll likely make the 5 O'Clock evening news. But
I do agree that the networks are doing a lot of CYA these days; even
on AFV they're blurring out kids and people who haven't given consent
for the videos sent in.
Seerialmom
<barbaralsherr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would say it's akin to the whole Nigerian "inheritance"
scam...American cameras? Woo hoo...Rich Americans can pay us!
Obveeus
"Seerialmom" <seeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> News people don't get signed releases for all those clowns that make
> faces behind the reporters heads.
News is different than 'entertainment'. At least, the news claims to be
different and is treated differently by the laws when it comes to the issue
of 'consent' to use of video footage.
Seerialmom
OIC...but I agree...there is a difference. Even the radio show I
listen to in the morning warns people they call that "your voice is on
the air". When the tape I sent into to AFV got selected I had to get
a release for my brother.
Barbara Bailey
OooooKay. So this happened in 2004.That would mean season 5.
And she's asking that CBS be *prevented* from broadcasting it?????
She's an idjit. Or the writer of the story got it wrong, in which
case, he or she is an idjit.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Barbara Bailey
It really depends on how she was "on camera." I don't believe that
there's any legal requirement to get releases from everyone who might
be passing within camera range in a public place (like in an airport
or on the street.)
If she was specifically filmed, I would expect them to get a release,
considering that Racers have said that the camera crews are carrying
release forms, and get them signed by everyone who the Racers are
filmed interacting with.
It's also possible toget a blanket "implied release" by posting that
filming will be going on in a certain area and that by entering, you
grant permission to have your image used, although those don't always
stand up in court.
Obveeus
"Barbara Bailey" <rabr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It really depends on how she was "on camera." I don't believe that
> there's any legal requirement to get releases from everyone who might
> be passing within camera range in a public place (like in an airport
> or on the street.)
I'm not so sure. The Screen Actors Guild has all kinds of rules to keep
those 'extras' employed. It wouldn;'t surprise me at all if non-news
footage requires a release for everyone caught on camera.
> If she was specifically filmed, I would expect them to get a release,
> considering that Racers have said that the camera crews are carrying
> release forms, and get them signed by everyone who the Racers are
> filmed interacting with.
She was a ticket counter worker, wasn't she? has anyone posted a clip of
her 'scene' to Youtube or etc....?
> It's also possible toget a blanket "implied release" by posting that
> filming will be going on in a certain area and that by entering, you
> grant permission to have your image used, although those don't always
> stand up in court.
That would never stand up in this case since she was at work. Being at
work, she doesn't really have the choice to 'go away'.