I don't know how it will hold up in court, but the video pretty clearly shows she is suing the mall for the public humiliation of her being broadcast all over Youtube.

I mean, I think we can all admit we have done some dumb things at time, but to then know some security camera guy is going to turn around and post it on Youtube? Eh... this is sort of why people are up in arms about cameras being everywhere.

I'm sure after the 10,000th lawyer called, she finally decided to sue. Though it is humiliating to have millions of people see a 'low-rez' blob fall into what looks like a water fountain. It is much more humiliating to do an interview and put a HD-face to the low-rez stupidity. The guy who uploaded it will probably lose his job, all because she has no sense of humor and wants to make a few bucks off her own screw-up.

Just say someone leaked it to youtubeleaks. Then it's not illegal.

It's OK to embarrass yourself once in a while. It helps to keep things in perspective.

Also, ffs! Who had any idea that it was her? Now everyone knows who she is and that she's an idiot. YOU ARE SO STUPID!!

Original: http://videosift.com/video/Employees-Laugh-at-CCTV-of-Texter-Falling-in-Mall-Fountain

Highest rated comment on YouTube when I posted this video:

"you guys are totally fired when this goes viral.
toweringflesh 3 hours ago 90"

Of course I don't think she should sue over this...

... but I have a gut reaction that the security workers who put it on youtube should be disciplined in some way. It seems to me there should be a policy (not necessarily a law) against them posting footage from work. Perhaps because of the potential for lawsuits such as this.

>> ^Stingray:
I don't know how it will hold up in court, but the video pretty clearly shows she is suing the mall for the public humiliation of her being broadcast all over Youtube.
I mean, I think we can all admit we have done some dumb things at time, but to then know some security camera guy is going to turn around and post it on Youtube? Eh... this is sort of why people are up in arms about cameras being everywhere.


Well she went from anonymous idiot to famouse idiot by bringing light to this event. However, knowing that she was a mall employee, something tells me the one-time public humiliation is worth the large paycheck so that she won't have to deal with the daily humiliation of working at the mall.

Oh yea...and let me add: "what the fuck are we coming to?" We can no longer laugh at other people's self-imposed misfortunes? That's the real crime here...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fountain, mall, texting, fall, suing' to 'fountain, mall, texting, fall, suing, dumbness' - edited by calvados

HOW dare you laugh at me when I make myself look like a complete moron?! REALLY. HOW DARE YOU!!

She should make money by being viral.

Well I hope "Daddy" told her to watch where the fuck she was going from now on.

lol fucking crybaby idiot... if you can't laugh at yourself when you do something laughable..

Suing because someone is laughing at you. Grow up.

I like that she walks us through it...

Reminds me of when little kids over-describe things... 'and then I got one green crayon and one yellow crayon and I was drawing with them on the papers and I drew a sun and trees with two squirrels in the trees and the squirrels were named Randall and Jessie... and I looked around and there was nothing I could grab and I ended up in the water."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Not the brightest spark, but I think she has a case - total violation of her privacy and public humiliation.

It needs a new brain.

>> ^dag:

Not the brightest spark, but I think she has a case - total violation of her privacy and public humiliation.


I disagree. Public humiliation was as a result of her being a klutz. It's awkward, it's uncomfortable and you want the earth to open and consume you, but part of being an adult is learning how to deal with that in a sensible and intelligent way, and not take oneself too seriously at all times.

The only interesting point is on the subject of surveillance and the handling of footage like this.

The humiliation belonged to a faceless, blurry figure, and now she's claimed it as her own. Fuck her. She's doing this for the money, plain and simple.

She's walking a fine line with the Streisand Effect here. Giving interviews is the last thing she should do if she's just trying to make money. Privately contact the mall management, threaten to sue, and get an out of court settlement real easy. Now, I suspect if it went to trial, she would likely have a hard time of it.

I'd guess that she doesn't have a lawyer yet. I'd also guess that she doesn't have a full understanding of how and why damages are calculated in a lawsuit.

>> ^Xax:

The humiliation belonged to a faceless, blurry figure, and now she's claimed it as her own. Fuck her. She's doing this for the money, plain and simple.

[redacted]

>> ^dag:

Not the brightest spark, but I think she has a case - total violation of her privacy and public humiliation.


Violation of her privacy in a space open to the public? And public humiliation used to be a form of punishment, not a redressable crime.

If she's to have a civil case there needs to be redressable damage and a violation of rights. None of her rights were violated and therefore where are the damages? There's no law against humiliation as far as I know unless you count defamation which probably only works if your reputation is necessary for your livelihood, such as a news caster or actor but even then its a specious claim.

Where you coming from on this?

1) She was in a public establishment
2) They never mentioned her by name in the video
3) STFU

She has nothing coming to her. The mall cops do have a potential pink slip coming to them for releasing internal company property to the public though.

Apart with all the embarrassment and humility this caused. She knows she made a goof. She's embarrassed and feels foolish. So what.

Now, the video is a whole different issue. I'm not a lawyer nor will I pretend to be but this has got to raise a few eyebrows. This video turns a silly mistake into a gigantic problem.

It's the whole "Smile, you're on public camera" issue. It's a Big Brother thing.
What do the invisible people behind all these cameras do with the footage of you (a private citizen) as you go to the mall, walk in the park, fill up with gas and generally go on with your day to day activities. Why do they have the right to film everything you do? We all assume the video is logged in some sort of system and deleted down the road when not used for any reason (ie: a robbery didn't take place).

If it is deleted, we all say, "whatever, that footage wasn't used" and we move on. If it does get used to expose a crime, we say, "great, I'm glad they caught the guy - hey look there's me in the background."

But what about all the footage being misused? Posting it to youtube and being publicly humiliated on a large scale is just part of it. What about using it to stalk, invasion of privacy and many other things people can think of? Now we have to be afraid to scratch our nose in public for fear of being recorded and posted to Youtube with a caption reading "Man picks nose in public". (Ewe gross!).

The point is, regardless of the humility this woman received and then was elevated to, these companies need to take a professional outlook on this information and be held accountable.

It's like going to the Emergency ward because you got shot in the but (keeping it Disney here), and then they video tape you coming in and them removing the bullet (as part of their procedure). OK, you leave, no problem. then one day you find out the video is on Youtube. Ya, you feel dumb, and embarrassed for shooting yourself in the rump, but you sue because of the gross violation of personal medical information.

There has got to be some accountability here, if there is no policy in place, she should be able to sue the Mall. If there is a policy in place, the individual should loose his job and be found liable. If they can't find out who did it, then the Mall is responsible for not having proper security measures in place to track who had access to security information.

Sagemind, if you don't want the mall filming you, don't go to the mall. If you don't want the gas station filming you, don't get gas. It's their private property, they can do as they please.

I don't know about everyone here. But even if I KNEW her watching that video I could never identify her personally.

The only way I'd be able to know it was her is if she TOLD me she fell into the fountain at the mall and then I saw someone on camera do it at the same mall.

BTW we should put a *crocodiletears because no way she was really crying that was the worst faking ever.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.

Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.

Seriously?
I didn't say I had issues with being filmed.
I said I had issues with organizations that don't take precautions and proper procedures to protect the footage they gather. If you are going to go to the extent as to gather video footage of people going about their personal lives, at least have the respect to keep it protected!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Sagemind, if you don't want the mall filming you, don't go to the mall. If you don't want the gas station filming you, don't get gas. It's their private property, they can do as they please.

>> ^dag:

What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.


Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.

Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.

But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

>> ^Xax:

The humiliation belonged to a faceless, blurry figure, and now she's claimed it as her own. Fuck her. She's doing this for the money, plain and simple.


You're probably more correct than you know.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5885523-texting-fountain-ladys-problems-bigger-than-youtube-fame

From the link:

"In the hours that followed Cathy Cruz Marrero's appearance on 'Good Morning America' today to talk about the fall and its aftermath, she was in court for a status hearing on charges of five felony counts, including theft by deception and receiving stolen property," reports ABC News.

Turns out Marrero's been out on $7,500 bail since 2009, after being charged with running up more than $5,000 in purchases on a co-worker's credit card. No wonder she had a lawyer handy.

Most establishments have video surveillance in use signs up. And it's common sense that you "watch where you are going", but perhaps they need a sign up for that too.

But let's do a little common practices and expectations when it comes to workplace conduct. Most businesses don't mind if you use your phone sparingly, but they will be pissed if you text while driving or handling machinery or putting yourself in dangerous situations by doing so. So they probably have a clause that says no cell phone use while on their time or unless it's company related.

I mean this is along the lines of thinking for activities such as driving without your prescription glasses, doing possibly dangerous or strenuous activities when you just started taking a new medication, carrying something that obstructs your vision on uneven or uncleared terrain, etc, etc. Things you can get away with sometimes doing, but you know you shouldn't be doing it. It's just more convenient to risk it than it is to take the time to do it in a safer way. And when things go wrong and it doesn't work out for you, the fault falls on you.

If she had been doing that and walked into traffic and got drilled by a car and the video caught her doing this.....I'd be thanking my lucky stars if I was the driver of that car. Because it was clearly her fault for not heeding right of way/jaywalking/whatever. Just like it would have been my fault if I was texting and driving and drilled her with my vehicle while she was legally crossing at a crosswalk.

The biggest crime here is that she hasn't learned that she bears responsibility for the consequences of her actions. If she had realized this and stepped to the side to quickly type her message and move on, there would be no video to be shown. People SHOPPING at malls would be shocked if they weren't being filmed nearly their whole time on the premises, so I highly doubt an employee could expect otherwise.

And that she claims she's humiliated by this video, but comes forward to identify herself....give multiple interviews and hint at lawsuits. Rape victims have more difficulty doing this due to humiliation and public scrutiny and they are victims of an actual CRIME. This lady is a victim of her own stupidity.

I view the guards who filmed and released this video as an entirely different subject than what this woman's problem is. Their punishment should not be based on the content of the video but if they violated any policies, laws, or agreements made to not release video unless authorized. The content of the video could be an empty hallway or someone doing donuts in their vehicles in the parking lots, and it should be judged in the same manner.

The only caveat to this video existing is if someone took this video in a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In her house, in her yard surrounded by privacy fence, even a public restroom. But the corridors of a mall are in no way private and someone could have captured her stupidity on any recording device and released it.

If she's being harassed at work over this, that's yet another subject......but it probably doesn't fall any under illegal form...since I don't think your incompetence or stupidity is legally protected. She could quit, and if I were her employer I would hope she did...because she's a "work injury" claim waiting to happen.

I'm not sure what's funnier, some twit walking into a fountain or a crying pumpkin.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Is the shopping centre not responsible for the unlawful use of its equipment by its employees? >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:
What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.

Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.
Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.
But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

"OMG, I'm on tv telling everyone I'm on YouTube! Wah, Wah, Wah!"

>> ^dag:

Is the shopping centre not responsible for the unlawful use of its equipment by its employees?


First, it's "center" not "centre". You may live in Australia, but you were born and raised here, so stop with the European "pinkies out" bullshit.

Second, yes, the mall is responsible for unlawful use of its equipment by its employees. I think it falls under Respondeat Superior, but I do believe this responsibility is limited. Aside from disciplining or firing the security guards who leaked the tape, I cannot see any further obligations necessary from the mall. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

I'd suspect it works kind of like this. You can't hold McDonald's liable if some lunatic employee came into work and decided to shoot the place up. But if he sold a chicken sandwich as a burger and refused to fix the problem, then that would be different a violation of the contract between customer and McDonald's therefore McDonald's would be liable to fix it (redress). In the case of the mall security guard, they stole company property and published it on the web, and the mall has a reasonable obligation to fire or reprimand the employee and redress any damages which are none in this case. Zero. No rights were not infringed. There was no broken contracts, no damages, nothing.

Pinkies out.

OK, I also have to side with everyone on the "Going on public TV" part of this - She was silly to have walked into the fountain, we all do silly things - it happens. I wonder if I/we would have ever seen this or cared if she hadn't gone public with it. It's true she's brought this public humiliation unto herself - No doubt.

I guess my comments above are more directed at the procedures of handling public video files "in general."
I just think more professionalism is needed.

Cheers

Let's say the mall had a video camera that streamed video of the main atrium to their website. Plenty of places do that. Does she have a case then?

What if this had been in the background of a private citizen's cell phone video?

Is it that an employee of a company willfully selected and posted the video? Why does that strike us as wrong? There's no sound, and I think video is fair game as far as the law is concerned. And why should we assume that security camera video is private?

I'm not aware of any laws broken here, but I would not be happy if I employed those security guards. They shouldn't be publicizing security footage and they should have had someone check on her when she fell instead of just laughing at her stupidity. Someone could have gotten hurt pretty bad from a faceplant like that.

Doesn`t she have a case if she`d go for the right to your own image?

Its her, someone recorded her in a public space but shes in the center clearly visible..

This is HER image.. so... sue them, get some money for them humiliating you.. nothing wrong with that..

It`s not like she had any say in this matter.

I dont want every silly thing i do ending up on youtube and someone else making money with it..

On what grounds could someone sue someone else for humiliating them? It lacks standing.

..oh, and a title that coincides with the content of the video would be nice.

WTF.

It was a blurry picture. If you didn't tell anyone you fell in a water fountain, and then didn't say "Yes! That was me!", there would of been no damage done. Nobody would be saying "Hey! Are you that lady that fell in the fountain?". Your life would be just normal.

Opportunity is here: You can ride the viral train, learn to laugh at yourself, and enjoy the mini celebrity train, OR you can sue, make an ass of yourself, get a load of people talking trash about you for a slim chance that you might get paid. Too bad she took the low road.

I can't read all the comments here, but they seem to all say that she's an idiot and shouldn't sue for her falling into the fountain. I'm sure she would agree. That's why she's not suing for falling into the fountain. If she were suing for that, it would be about not having high enough walls around the fountain, or insufficient signage or some other due diligence issue surrounding her tumble.

But she's not doing that. She's suing for the public humiliation of security putting her on YouTube. If you think that's unwarranted, then argue that.

>> ^messenger:

I can't read all the comments here, but they seem to all say that she's an idiot and shouldn't sue for her falling into the fountain. I'm sure she would agree. That's why she's not suing for falling into the fountain. If she were suing for that, it would be about not having high enough walls around the fountain, or insufficient signage or some other due diligence issue surrounding her tumble.
But she's not doing that. She's suing for the public humiliation of security putting her on YouTube. If you think that's unwarranted, then argue that.
You'd probably have been better off reading the comments. Almost no one is arguing that she shouldn't sue for falling in. It's mostly a discussion about whether she has a right to sue based on the release of the video.

In the future, obstacles will send you a Tweet when you're approaching too closely.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.