THERE WAS ALWAYS THIS INSATIABLE NEED TO SEE YOUNG GIRLS AS YOUNG AS TEN IN THE FLESH AND AS COREY FELDMAN TOLD US, THAT IT WAS YOUNG BOYS AS WELL. AND THAT THE ARRAINGERS OF THESE PHOTOGRAPS WERE MOSTLY THE PUBLICISTS WORKING FOR THE TALENT AGENTS.
In 1983 Brooke Shields sued to reclaim the hard copy of herself at 10 years old in the nude. (Even though Brooke Shields refused to engage in mediation regarding the film The Hot Flashes, which was sued for copyright violation, we are horrified at what the industry did to her at a very young age.)
However, we were hoping that she would admit to the corruption that goes on in the industry and question how a man claimed to be the writer of the menopause story after the original written by a women was read out at a Canadian film festival the year before.
The PDF (as Jimmy Doore calls it) desire goes as far back as 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10 years old. And again, old footage of when Britney Spears was a approximately 10 plus there were similar instances where a women commentator called Britney Spears "using her sexual" moves to attrack audiences. FFS people, these girls were 10 yrs old. And then some creepy old guy claims that "men" are hard wired in their desire to see these precious innocent girls at 10 years old in the flesh. Not sure what kind of men he hangs out with.
So when Brooke Shields was 17 years old she sued to get the hard copy of her photos back. The court found in favour of the photographer . The case SHIELDS BY SHIELDS v. Gross, 563 F. Supp. 1253 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
The judge was "Pierre N. Leval is a Senior Judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , appointed in 1993 by President Clinton. Who previously served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York from 1977 to 1993, appointed by President Carter. He is known for his significant contributions to intellectual property and copyright law." Current Role: Senior Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (since August 16, 2002).
Transcript of the case : "In 1975, when plaintiff Brooke Shields was 10 years old, she and her mother, plaintiff Teri Shields, reached an arrangement with Gross, a commercial photographer, for these photographs to be taken. Brooke *1254 Shields was paid $450 for the photo sessions by Playboy Press, and her mother signed a release giving Gross unlimited rights to use or publish the photographs. Some of the photos, those in controversy, were posed naked.
These photographs have been displayed or published in a variety of ways. Two in particular, which plaintiff characterizes as the most revealing, appeared in 1976 in a Playboy Press publication entitled Sugar & Spice and, in larger-than-life-size enlargements, in the windows of a fashionable boutique on Fifth Avenue in New York.[1] More recently, some of the photographs have appeared in at least five publications, some of them decidedly disreputable."
The reason it was published in Sugar & Spice was for PlayBoy Press to avoid being sued. This "circumvention" trick is even more so in the industry today.
TAKE OUTS FROM THE COURT CASE.
Firstly , the perverts were clever enough to get her mother to consent. (I would like to add a comment from Cory Feldman when asked in an interview) "... but what if the parents just want to pursue a acting career for their child" Cory Feldman replied ...(paraphrase ) "they should be careful what they wish for.." Smart words from a survivor of the PDF machine.
Secondly, why didn't Brooke Shields and her mother sue Playboy Press, because it was the one's who financially benefitted from the sale of copies of its magazine and that is because Sugar & Spice is noted in the court papers as a "publication" of PlayBoy Press. So the Judge was not the copyright expert he claimed to be. Amazon tried the same trick with Louboutin's shoes saying it (Amazon) was merely the facilitator and not the distributor. The court saw it differently in CJEU, December 22nd, 2022 decision in Amazon v Louboutin: towards increased liability of e-commerce platforms in case of trademark infringement. The court was the EU court of Justice which oversees International copyright. https://www.august-debouzy.com/en/blog/1908-cjeu-december-22nd-2022-decision-in-amazon-v-louboutin-towards-increased-liability-of-e-commerce-platforms-in-case-of-trademark-infringement
Thirdly, the Judge failed to view Shields case as a "child" at the time, irrespective of whether her mother consented. Her legal team should have proved that her mother was coerced into having these naked pictures taken to advance her daughters career. Her legal team and the time were Sandor Frankel, Bender & Frankel, New York City, for plaintiffs.
This could have been a case setting president for exploited children, but the industry was already so powerful that even Brooke Shields could not get a break from the perversion machine, yet she has never spoken up for other victims. Maybe she doesn't see herself as a victim.
They were exploiting this underage girl for all she was worth to them and their perverse ways.
Timeline of the exploitation of Brooke Shields.
1975 The nude photo of Brooke Shields at 10 years old. This was a year before her first movie. Are we to assume that it was an initiation into the industry - definition of initiation ...."the action of admitting someone into a secret or obscure society or group, typically with a ritual ."
I976 Brooke Shields' first movie as a child was the 1976 slasher film Alice, Sweet Alice . The film received mixed reviews ..."though many critics found the film's graphic violence and religious themes obscene and anti-Catholic"
1978 The second film Pretty Baby was produced in 1977 two years after the naked photo of Brooke Shields at 10 years old.
"Pretty Baby is a 1978 (released in 1978 and produced in 1977) American historical film directed by Louis Malle and starring amongst others, ((12 year old (produced in 1977)) Brooke Shields and Susan Sarandon.
The film is set in 1917, it focuses on a 12-year-old girl being raised in a brothel in Storyville in the red light district of New Orleans, by her prostitute mother. The film is based on the true account of a young girl who was sexually exploited by being groomed to engage in prostitution as a child, a theme that was recounted in historian Al Rose's 1974 book Storyville, New Orleans: Being an Authentic Illustrated Account of the Notorious Red-Light District. It is also based on the life of photographer Ernest Bellocq , who photographed various New Orleans prostitutes in the early 20th century "
THE CONTROVERSY
According to online information, the book detailed the presence and exploitation of children within the district, which later informed the controversial themes in the film Pretty Baby. The author A L Rose said at the time ... "even though they paid me for the rights they simily ignored any input from my side even though there were scenes that were not in the book."
We are going to call out Susan Sarandon (if there's a cause one would find Susan Sarandon) yet she was the partner of the director Louis Malle at the time and as an adult she should have protected Brooke Shields or written an amicus brief in support of the 17 year old Brooke Shields (5 years after the film) during Shields court action to reclaim the negative of her photos. Notably, there was also no amicus curea from Paramount Pictures in support of their young star.
According to Cinema Flashback the film Pretty Baby ..."The continuing controversy over Shields' nude scenes resulted in the film being banned in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan until it was repealed in 1995. Gossip columnist Rona Barrett called the film "child pornography," and director Louis Malle allegedly was portrayed as a "combination of 'Lolita''s Humbert and controversial director Roman Polanski." In addition to the issue of child prostitution, the scenes involving a nude Shields were controversial."
The BBC originally censored two scenes for the film's cinema release in the UK to remove nudity, but the uncut version was released on DVD in 2006." The film is available on Netflix and Amazon Prime, the usual suspects.
1980 Five years after the naked photo shoot. The highly controversial ad for Calvin Kline "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins" ad at age 15, she appeared in the television and print ads, which were directed by Richard Avedon and sparked significant public outcry due to their suggestive nature. The TV ad featured Shields saying, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing."
WHERE THE PHOTO OF A NAKED 10 YEAR OLD APPEARED.
PlayBoy Press was the initiator and the publisher in its Sugal & Spice publication.
The photo was on full display in high end shops on Fifth Avenue.
The image of Brooke Shields, specifically the 1983 artwork "Spiritual America" by Richard Prince, was displayed at the Tate Modern gallery in London in 2009.
The controversial piece, featuring a 1975 photograph of a 10-year-old nude Brooke Shields, was removed on October 1, 2009, following a UK police investigation into potential obscenity law violations.
Tate reopened the Richard Prince room in the Pop Life exhibition with a later version of the Richard Prince work Spiritual America IV, 2005. The gallery said in a statement that this work had been produced “in collaboration with Brooke Shields”
The above is a lie by Tate Galleries as the "transformative" painting of the 10 year old Brooke Shields was obviously created when Brooke Shields lost her case against the photophotographer. The painting was created in 1985 some two years after the court case.
Officers from the police’s obscene publications unit visited Tate on 30 September to discuss the inclusion of the Prince work entitled Spiritual America in the gallery’s Pop Life exhibition. They advised that the image was “indecent” under the Protection of Children Act of 1978 and that by showing it, Tate would be committing an offence. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed yesterday that the Met police had sought its advice before the Tate meeting.
There were suggestion that the Tate Gallery wanted to put the picture behind a curtain with a rated warning. The public were outraged that such a setting would invite more perverts to view the image as a "peep" show and the painting was removed.