HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017454.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

Brooke Shields and her mother Teri

When Brooke Shields was 10 years old, her ambitious mother Teri signed a contract with an
equally ambitious photographer to photograph Brooke naked, taking a bath. Brooke was paid
$450 for the photo sessions by Playboy Press, and her mother signed a release giving the
photographer the unlimited right to publish the photographs anywhere and at any time.

Seven years later, as Brooke was about the enter Princeton as a freshman, the photographer
decided to exploit her fame by producing a calendar featuring naked pictures of the 10 year old.
Brooke was upset that any such calendar would circulate among her fellow students at Princeton
and would cause her great embarrassment.

She hired a former student of mine to try to negotiate with the photographer to buy back the
rights, and if that failed, to try to prevent publication of the photographs. My former student
sought my advice on the matter. I told him it would be an uphill fight to try to enjoin the
publication of the pictures, because they were not obscene and because prior restraint is always
disfavored by the law.

This was another example, this time of a celebrity mother, making a short term judgment to allow
her young daughter to pose naked, without considering the longer term implications on her
welfare. The only theory on which I thought she could possibly succeed was that Brooke’s
mother had no right to surrender her daughter’s privacy and that Brooke, now approaching
adulthood, should have control over her own image.

Ultimately the court ruled, in a bizarre opinion, that Brooke had essentially waived her right to
privacy by allowing the photographs to be published earlier, and by pursuing a career in which she
has relied on her sexuality for her success. The court put it this way:

“Much of plaintiff's recent commercial activity upon which her fame is based has been far
more sexually suggestive than the photographs which have been shown to the court.
These photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic; they do not
suggest promiscuity. They are photos of a prepubescent girl in innocent poses at her bath.
In contrast, defense counsel have submitted numerous samples of sex-oriented publicity
concerning plaintiff. Particularly notable is her widely televised sexually suggestive
advertisement for blue jeans. Recent film appearances have been sexually provocative
(e.g., “The Blue Lagoon”, “Endless Love”.). Plaintiff's claim of harm is thus undermined
to a substantial extent by the development of her career projecting a sexually provocative
image.

This reasoning fails to distinguish between a 17 year old and a 10 year old. The earlier
photographs were taken of a 10 year old kid, whose mother controlled what she would do. Her
recent appearances were made by a near-adult and were far more within her own control. The
court simply ignored the argument by the 10 year old should not be bound by foolish decisions
made by an ambitious mother when Brooke was too young to say no.

367

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017454