Nightmare scenario involving contract

I try to avoid reading the Yahoo stories with the headlines that try so hard to pique your interest, but this one was sent to me by someone who knew I’d be interested in the contracts-related issues.  Maryann Sahoury is suing a production company, Meredith Corp., after she particpated in an instructional breast feeding video that was used by a third party to create pornography.  Sahoury participated in the video to help other moms who might have trouble breastfeeding their children.  She was told by the producer that only her first name would be used in the video.  After the filming and while juggling her baby, she was asked to sign a “piece of paper” which she did without reading it.

When she later conducted a search of her name, she found numerous links to pornographic sites and found one that showed her breastfeeding video spliced with another pornographic one containing a woman with similar features.  Even a search of her baby’s name turned up links to pornographic sites and videos.  Her lawsuit is not claiming that the production company is responsible for creating the pornographic spliced video; rather her lawsuit states that the production company posted the breastfeeding video on YouTube and used her full name, when it represented it would only post it on Parents TV and cable television and use her first name. 

The production company, Meredith, said that Sahoury had signed a release that allowed the company to use her “image, voice and name.”

I find the company’s response infuriating.  Any dummy knows that posting a video anywhere on the internet can be misused – especially when the video contains a woman’s breast.  It doesn’t sound like Sahoury is trying to make money from this – the article states that she is seeking only an order prohibiting the defendants from using the video featuring her and her daughter for any purpose (and attorney fees). 

This situation raises a host of legal and policy related issues, but I’m going to try to focus on the contract ones.  The first issue that comes to mind is whether the release is even enforceable.  Was there consideration for the release given that it was signed after filming ended.  (She wasn’t paid for her participation in the filming).  I also wonder whether there might be an interpretation issue that could work in her favor – “image, voice and name,” – does that mean first name or first and last name?  If nothing more is stated in the release, the verbal assurance that only her first name would be used should be highly relevant to interpret the meaning of the word “name”.  Furthermore, did the release state in what medium or outlet the video could be used?  If it wasn’t worded sufficiently broadly, the verbal assurance that it would only be posted on Youtube should limit the scope of the license she granted.  In addition, was there an integration clause in the event to allow oral statements (and get around the parol evidence rule).  Along the same lines, was the assurance that it would be posted only on Parents TV and cable television given before or after she signed the release? 

I know I’m missing other issues so please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments. 

[Nancy Kim]

[corrected post]