Diddy's Topless Mermaid Lawsuit Tossed

Hedge-fund money manager Maria Dominguez took her top off five years ago at one of Diddy's Hamptons bashes, and promptly sued (Diddy, the magazine and photographer) for $3 million when her photo ran in an issue of Vibe alongside the caption "Mermaids gone wild." Dominguez claimed she never thought she'd be photographed at his famous White Party, with Vibe's argument being they didn't need permission to use photos from the newsworthy event. In the end "the judge's fear of a decision to the contrary would have opened up Pandora's Box, being that Manhattan is the media capital of the world," her lawyer told the Daily News. And the "mental strain" the photo caused Dominguez all those years ago? It's probably back now since the image is reappearing in plenty of papers again! At least she had the good sense to wear starfish-shaped pasties that night, and now she'll have the good sense to know cameras might just be present at high profile parties.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in News on September 24, 2008 4:50 PM

Comments [rss]

Antonio

No you didn't.

* doesn't lol *

RDR105

I meant Rapper! lol

RDR105

I wanna be a raper!

RoDogg

Ladies: Stop blaming others for you being naked. She took off her owns clothes and now she suing because she was photographed naked. Well, maybe if you didn't want to been seen naked, keep your damn clothes on! Sadly, society today is full of airheaded women who never what to take responsibility for their OWN actions.

NOTE TO ALL WOMEN: This is 2008, the age of technology, the internet, and electronic media. Take caution of what you do anywhere at anytime! Stop blaming others for your own stupidity.

jaycjay

For what it's worth, the pics were taken in 2003. Good chance she wasn't a hedge fund manager when she was 23.

jterry121

RIP Wall Street

Snoopy

And to think I was going to turn over my 750 mil CD retirement plan to the hedge-fund money manager Maria Dominguez. I guess I got lucky on that one.

jaycjay

couldn't confirm teh video since i'm at wor,

I'd be careful, especially with the one that's hosted in China (yeah, makes sense that a video of her would be there). But the one that wants to run "setup.exe" seems a little suspect too.

tingo

While shortselling overbought mortgages that ran our economy into the ground, this 28 year old mermaid lay barebreasted and drunk in a multimillionaire's pool.

Sounds nice.

Really, people wonder why there is such vitrol stirring about these wallstreet asshats right now?

ed_Extinct

this is largest i found:

http://bumpshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/maria_dominguez.jpg

and then there's digg: couldn't confirm teh video since i'm at wor, but: http://digg.com/celebrity/Topless_Mermaid_Maria_Dominguez_Lawsuit_Dropped

jaycjay

#4, there is some gray area in the law. Generally there's no such requirement for photos taken in a public place, but there could be in a private place. The definitions of "public" and "private" aren't firm, though, and generally a "private place" is a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So there can be "public places" that are actually private property. If you're in the crowd at a sporting event or concert, you may be on private property but have no expectation that photos aren't being taken. The judge's decision here reflected a belief that Combs' party fell into that category. It was clearly crawling with celebrities, reporters, and photographers. No one could reasonably expect that they were "in private" while in attendance.

On the other hand, if you are on public property, say a park or beach, but inside a tent or something where other people aren't expected to enter, you do have an expectation of privacy. In that case, photos likely couldn't be used without your permission.

Dirk

Sorry, I meant to say you don't need...

Dirk

You need a signed release if you're dealing with news-type situations. Thus, Vibe magazine didn't her permission to run that photo.

zodak

i'm not defending her but i thought magazines couldn't make money off of pictures of you unless you signed a release giving them permission?

isn't that why they blur people on certain tv shows??

(i'm not a lawyer)

jaycjay

In spite of the poor grammatical construction, I love her lawyer's copout:

"The judge's fear of a decision to the contrary would have opened up Pandora's Box, being that Manhattan is the media capital of the world"

Yep, had nothing to do with a judge thinking logically (provocative dress at a celeb party crawling with photographers could lead to your photo being taken). "I didn't lose this case on its merits, it was fear of shutting down the media industry!"

Good to hear of a judge thinking logically.