SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Even a starlet can't defeat the First Amendment:
Hellraiser Lindsay Lohan has had her case against Grand Theft Auto developers Rockstar Games, for allegedly basing a character on her image, thrown out by a New York court. The actress claimed that her image was used as the basis of one of the game's characters, Lacey Jonas. The Jonas character allowed players to rescue her from swarms of paparazzi and take her home and the cover art for the game featured a woman holding a mobile who, it was argued, looked remarkably like Lohan.
Lohan's lawsuit, filed two years ago, said that the places and events in both characters' storylines were "substantially similar" to her own life and there could be no doubt about who the game was sending up.
[...] However, the court threw out the case on Thursday. The court ruled that because her name was never used, and the character doesn't look exactly like her, Lohan had no case. The ruling said: "This video game's unique story, characters, dialogue, and environment, combined with the player's ability to choose how to proceed in the game, render it a work of fiction and satire."
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Saturday September 03 2016, @02:30PM
But it was about her -- a flattering shape but carictured in parody.
It was the the less than positive, clearly exploitative use of her image that she... well. I am guessing she wanted to profit from it. I am reluctant to believe she'd be offended, given some of the roles she's had, outfits she's worn and actions she's been documented doing and so on.
Of course, I wouldn't want to be parodied as an object of some kind either. The ability to make fun of someone and profit is a time-honored technique--my guess is that she not only didn't like it, but she liked it much less when it was fairly clear that the object of parody was none-other than herself, and she did not receive a royalty of any kind for her 'appearance' or 'cameo' in the game.
That said, I'm agreeing with you but with a different choice of wording. I don't have a firm position on how far I would want such parodying to go before I saw it as a demeaning nusiance. If she was a popularized, but hot, nun or something along those lines of being a pillar of moral superiority-- then the depiction on GTA V is clearly salicious and objectifing.
Since her life so far has resulted in pretty much what you described -- I think her lawsuit is without merit. Maybe she deserved a few tokens of credit for being objectified in some way. Maybe free marketing beyond the Streisand Effect for some movie I won't see or pin up calendar I won't buy. But her approach was way too heavy handed and just not in sync with the reality of what her life is percieved to be like by many people, mostly due to the image she's portrayed... much of that image being less than flattering (if not for key objectified parts, of course!)