Mom Says Teaching Video About|Breastfeeding Was Turned Into Porn

     NEWARK (CN) – A mother who agreed to be filmed for an educational video on breastfeeding, with the understanding that neither her name nor her child’s would be mentioned, says she was “mortified and shocked” to find the video, using her name, posted on the Internet, with “link after link linking her name to pornography and pornographic websites.”



     The mother, M.S., sued Meredith Corp., Meredith Video Studios and Parent TV for fraud, privacy invasion, breach of contract and other charges, in Federal Court.
     She says a “lactation consultant” helped her after she gave birth to her daughter, A.S., in December 2009. “Thereafter, the lactation consultant approached M.S. and told her that she was engaged by Parent TV to appear in an educational/instructional breastfeeding video,” according to the complaint.
     M.S. says that despite “some serious trepidation,” she agreed to do the video “because she felt her own personal experience would be insightful and helpful to other first-time mothers who are considering breastfeeding.”
     They did the video at the lactation consultant’s home in New Jersey, M.S. says. She adds: “The woman in charge of the video production specifically represented to both, M.S. and the lactation consultant, that the finished video would not disclose, either audibly or visually, the full name (first and last) of either M.S. and/or A.S. She also represented that the breastfeeding video would be used for educational and instructional purposes only and that the video would be shown on their website and cable TV.”
     She says she agreed to do the shoot, “based on these representations,” and that she did it “without seeking compensation, celebrity status or publicity.”
     Then, according to the complaint: “After the shoot was complete, M.S. packed up A.S. in her car seat and was about to leave the premises. The woman in charge told M.S. that she had to sign a piece of paper that was on a kitchen counter top. She asked M.S. to sign the paper on behalf of herself and A.S. She did not ask M.S. to read it first before she signed it. She did not advise M.S. that she should have an attorney review it before she signed it. She did not explain to M.S. the content of the paper. M.S. believed that she was signing a paper, which confirmed what had been represented to her in the morning before the shoot.
     “Without reading or reviewing the paper, she signed the paper.
     “Months went by and no one had contacted M.S. about the airing of the video. M.S. has previously worked in public relations for all types of companies. As a result, she occasionally searched her name and the companies she worked for, through the Google search engine.
     “In early July 2010, she decided to Google her name. When she typed in her full name, she was horrified to view what the Google search revealed. The first page of the search revealed link after link linking her name to pornography and pornographic websites.
     “When she investigated further, she discovered that the links brought you to a video, which combined actual footage from the breastfeeding video with pornographic video using a woman with similar features and stature to M.S. Based upon information and belief, it appears that the creator of this video spliced pornographic video with live footage from the breastfeeding video. Reading the links and watching the video would have the viewer believe that it was M.S. in both the breastfeeding video and the pornographic video. The same video also contained footage of M.S.’s minor daughter. The links connect A.S. to pornography.
     “M.S. was mortified and shocked to learn that the defendants filmed, edited, and produced the breastfeeding video using M.S’s first and last name, contrary to the representations made to M.S. before the video shoot.
     “Had the defendants not used M.S.’s last name, the creator of the pornographic video would not have been able to link up the breastfeeding video and the pornographic video with M.S. and A.S. connecting both of them to pornography.”
     M.S. says the breastfeeding video also had been posted on YouTube. She says she spent “countless hours and sleepless nights” trying to identify and shut down the sites that had turned her video into pornography. She says the lactation consultant “also spent countless hours trying to assist M.S. in her quest to repair her and her daughter’s damaged reputation.” But she could get only some of the porn links removed; others remained.
     She says she finally tracked down the man she believes doctored and posted the pornography, “an individual named ‘Nizarddd’.” But she says, “Defendants have made no effort to monitor him or have him shut down.”
     She says she tried on her own to get the web hosts to shut down the sites, and gave the defendants all the information she found, but “the defendants learned that it would be very difficult and quite costly to them to track down and shut down the creator of this video. Only after M.S. secured counsel did defendants renew their interest in attempting to mitigate the damages.
     “Defendants offered to retain the services of a reputation management company to assist M.S. As it turns out, this is the company M.S. referred to the defendants’ months ago. In an attempt to mitigate the damages, M.S. has agreed to retain the services of this reputation management company.”
     M.S. says this company told her that “no matter what they do, they will not be able to completely eliminate the pornographic videos and/or pornographic links from the search engines.”
     She says that despite all their efforts, “new links and new videos periodically resurface on the Internet linking M.S. and A.S. to pornography.”
     Worst of all, she says, a search of her daughter’s name linked the baby girl to a porn site which “takes the viewer directly to the porn site offering the viewer an array of pornographic videos with titles such as Solo Babe ‘A.S.’, Horney ‘A.S.’, and many others.”
     She says that after strenuous efforts, she was able to get the original video removed from YouTube, but less than 24 hours later, “a new breastfeeding/pornographic video involving M.S. and A.S. was uploaded onto You Tube. As of September 6, 2011, over two thousand five hundred (2,500) people have already viewed the video.”
     To cap it all, she says, “on August 23, 2011, Nizzard, the creator of the original breastfeeding/pornographic video, found her on Facebook and sent her a friend request. The request included a collage of photos, which included legitimate photos of M.S. breastfeeding A.S., and other pornographic photos, which appear to look like M.S., but are not her. Fearing for the safety and well being of her family, she frantically checked all of her family’s privacy Facebook settings to ensure that the perpetrator would not be able to connect any further and to make sure these photos could not be viewed by them or any of her Facebook connections. She also deleted her Facebook account and has not reactivated it since.”
     On her own behalf and for her little girl, M.S. seeks punitive damages for fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
     She is represented by Fred Pisani, with Ramp & Pisani of Tenafly.

%d bloggers like this: