Mom sues over breast-feeding video-turned-porn
»Play Video
WOOD RIDGE, N.J. (AP) - A New Jersey mother is suing an Iowa production company after an instructional breast-feeding video she appeared in was taken by a third party and used to create pornography.
A federal court judge ruled last week that MaryAnn Sahoury's lawsuit against the Meredith Corp. could proceed. In January 2010, Sahoury agreed to demonstrate breast-feeding techniques with her month-old daughter in a video for Parents TV, which broadcasts original videos on parenting. Sahoury, who had had trouble breast-feeding, wanted to help women who faced similar difficulties, she said.
"I didn't get paid to do this. I didn't want to be some sort of celebrity," Sahoury, 35, told The Associated Press. "I did this to help other moms."
Sahoury claims she was told by a producer that only first names would be used in the video. When filming was over, Sahoury was asked to sign a piece of paper; she was juggling her daughter and signed it without reading.
Months later, Sahoury Googled herself. She was shocked by the results: numerous links to pornographic sites and videos containing her name. She clicked on one and saw the breast-feeding video spliced with a woman of "similar features and stature" performing sex acts, according to the lawsuit. Sahoury then Googled her infant daughter's name, which also returned links to pornographic sites and videos.
"It was terrifying," Sahoury said. "It was like I can't even control my life and it was spiraling out of control."
Sahoury's full name was used in the video, the lawsuit states, yielding the Google results. The lawsuit also claims the video was placed on YouTube, when Sahoury was told it would appear only on Parents TV and cable television. Her lawsuit is seeking an order prohibiting the defendants from using the video featuring her and her daughter for any purpose; it also seeks attorney fees.
Meredith said the paper Sahoury signed was a release authorizing the company to use her "image, voice and name," according to her suit.
The lawsuit states the Des Moines, Iowa-based company initially worked to help find the person believed to be responsible for the video and remove it from the Internet, but the help waned. Sahoury said videos kept popping up even after they were taken down.
In a statement, Meredith said it is "appalled" that the video was misused and it hired lawyers to file take-down demands and Internet specialists to clear online caches and continues the "good-faith efforts."
"We have taken these actions even though Ms. Sahoury signed a full release for herself and her daughter," the statement said.
Sahoury said she hopes the lawsuit leads to greater Internet protections.
"I never want this to happen again," she said.
A federal court judge ruled last week that MaryAnn Sahoury's lawsuit against the Meredith Corp. could proceed. In January 2010, Sahoury agreed to demonstrate breast-feeding techniques with her month-old daughter in a video for Parents TV, which broadcasts original videos on parenting. Sahoury, who had had trouble breast-feeding, wanted to help women who faced similar difficulties, she said.
"I didn't get paid to do this. I didn't want to be some sort of celebrity," Sahoury, 35, told The Associated Press. "I did this to help other moms."
Sahoury claims she was told by a producer that only first names would be used in the video. When filming was over, Sahoury was asked to sign a piece of paper; she was juggling her daughter and signed it without reading.
Months later, Sahoury Googled herself. She was shocked by the results: numerous links to pornographic sites and videos containing her name. She clicked on one and saw the breast-feeding video spliced with a woman of "similar features and stature" performing sex acts, according to the lawsuit. Sahoury then Googled her infant daughter's name, which also returned links to pornographic sites and videos.
"It was terrifying," Sahoury said. "It was like I can't even control my life and it was spiraling out of control."
Sahoury's full name was used in the video, the lawsuit states, yielding the Google results. The lawsuit also claims the video was placed on YouTube, when Sahoury was told it would appear only on Parents TV and cable television. Her lawsuit is seeking an order prohibiting the defendants from using the video featuring her and her daughter for any purpose; it also seeks attorney fees.
Meredith said the paper Sahoury signed was a release authorizing the company to use her "image, voice and name," according to her suit.
The lawsuit states the Des Moines, Iowa-based company initially worked to help find the person believed to be responsible for the video and remove it from the Internet, but the help waned. Sahoury said videos kept popping up even after they were taken down.
In a statement, Meredith said it is "appalled" that the video was misused and it hired lawyers to file take-down demands and Internet specialists to clear online caches and continues the "good-faith efforts."
"We have taken these actions even though Ms. Sahoury signed a full release for herself and her daughter," the statement said.
Sahoury said she hopes the lawsuit leads to greater Internet protections.
"I never want this to happen again," she said.
Sorry but she's dumb as a rock.
And the lesson here is always, ALWAYS, read the fine print.
IF there are images of the child in these porn films, that would seem to be a case of child porn - and anyone having copies of this should be subject to arrest and prosecution.
 @OrcasThunder The child would have to be engaged in a sexual act or posed in a sexually suggestive way in order for it to be kiddy pr0n.  A child breastfeeding is not kiddy porn.  Ever.
it is if it is used in a film inteneded for PORN!
Â
another sicko....what is wrong with people it is a baby.
Â
How would you feel if this was your kid or worse if you were the the baby in the film and creeps all over the world are ******* Off to it.
Â
you're real classy
 @mhungry " A child breastfeeding is not kiddy porn."
If it is used in a porn video, a child breastfeeding IS kiddy porn. Using an image of any underage person in porn - ANY CHILD - makes the video child porn. Even if the child was just sitting on her lap, it would be child porn.
 @OrcasThunder I'm sure neither mom nor the baby were in the nude or performing any kind of sex act there. If anything there was some bare adult breast shown..big deal..I can find that in a National Geographic. But the fact that the video got misused is another matter.
Child + Porno = Child Porn
Â
If a movie is inteneded for porn and there is a child in it that IS a case of child porn.
Â
Hope these are NOT the films you are watching.
Â
Sicko!
Anyone who would take something innocent and turn it into some kind of pervert fantasy needs to have their heads checked. Â That's just sick and wrong on so many levels.
Â
I hope this poor woman is able to put a stop to her name and video from being used. Â I applaud her for taking action on this and (hopefully) preventing this from happening to anyone else.
 @JoeKing People take innocent things and turn them into fantasy all the time. How about short "schoolgirl" or "nurse" outfits? Leather riding chaps? Hairbrushes? Might want to think about how you phrase that first comment a bit more carefully.Â
Â
I know what you probably meant, but people have been perverting things since the dawn of time and it's not going to stop. Men (and women!) have been oogling breast feeding women for thousands of years. It's nothing new.Â
Â
That said, I agree she should take whatever legal action she can. It's her image, and if she doesn't like what's being done with it, she shouldn't have to stand for it.
@mhungry @JoeKingÂ
Â
Wow mhungry WOW
Â
Joe DONT worry about how you phrased that first comment. mhungry is encouraging child porn.
Â
Child porn is "nothing new" and people need to stop trying to defend these nasty pervs who are taking away from the "innocent" things in life.
Â
Â
 @mhungry "I know what you probably meant"
Based on some of your other comments, I would suggest that you don't understand.
Is this a matter of an attempt to self justify?
I'm surprised at all the comments against the Mother. Â
Â
What I'd be more interested to learn, is why a production company focused on Parent TV (family-oriented television) is willing to sell the videos to third-party companies to be used in porn. Â Regardless of a release-form being signed, and the fact that it's morally crooked, isn't it also illegal to have under-age people in porn?
Â
What does Meredith Corp have to say about all this? Â Do they make it a business of selling ParentTV recorded video to the porn industry? Â There's some inherent trust given when you are approached to be a part of something so innocent, only to later be used for something quite the opposite. Â She was mislead and I think she'll win in court.
 @Landshark They may not have sold the video to a porn company. More likely some shady 3rd party out of the country lifted the video off the internet and inserted it. Happens all the time to people's normal photos and videos. Putting ANY kind of image or video of yourself in the public sphere opens yourself up to abuse of said image/video. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it happens a lot more than we hear about, or people realize.
 @mhungry Exactly.  The article does not state the that studio sold the video to a porn company.  I'm not sure why so many people seem to be jumping to that conclusion.  The article makes the mother's main complaints out to be: 1) that they used her full name in the video, contrary to her wishes, 2) that it had been posted on YouTube, and 3) that the studio hasn't been as helpful at trying to stop the pornographer's postings as she would have liked.  Nowhere does it say that she is suing the studio for selling the video to pornographers.
I love my porn but this is one genre that baffles me.
Wow, talk about a massive lawsuit. I hope she takes them for every penny they have... How scary.
Â
arent you suppose to sign before not after ? this mom wasnt thinking apparently, wonder if her husband knew about this before, and if so why didnt he go with or at least advise her. this will follow her around for the rest of her life.
 @mstercor Yes, silly woman thinking she could do something by herself...? Anybody could have gotten caught up in this.
 @mstercor The production company was probably counting on her attention being with the baby rather than reading the contract.
Horrifying !!
Yes this company is sleazy but bottom line is she screwed up. NEVER sign anything without reading it and NEVER expect pics and videos of yourself that are made available for public consumption to not be used in ways you never intended.
 @Petwlkr You'd think someone showing such an intimate act would be extra careful signing on the dotted line. In this case apparently not. Probably sleep deprived with a new baby and all, but still no excuse for being such a numbskull. When the baby grows up, who wants that plastered all over the internet and facebook?
Errr . . . signing a "release form" - good luck with that. What a sad document to overlook the fine print, what a bonehead move. Sucks to be her! Sorry for poor choice of words . . . nah I'm not.
Why is it that people always seem to be able to afford a lawyer when they want to sue someone, but can't afford one to look over some papers before signing them?
 @Fooey Patooey! The article says "she is also seeking attorney fee's" So leads me to think she doesn't have the$ to pay the attorney to begin with,perhaps it is one of those cases where they don't get paid unless she does.
Â
 @NICOLE GALEANA It could also mean that shes not looking for a big payout and only wants her child and her name cleared of the association this production company has created for them through guile and deceit. Not everyone wants six or seven figure payouts when they sue someone.
 @Fooey Patooey! Excellent observation....
She signed the release authorizing them to use it, from the story it appears she simply didn't read it or understand it and no fraud was used to get her to sign it. Â It sucks to learn hard lessons like this but she needs to look in the mirror for the blame.
 @oledawg Ya know normally people that suck cant see their reflection in a mirror
 @oledawg Yes... it sucks... Big Time...
If you're going to get naked in front of a camera and if you are going to have a child involved (yes, this was totally innocent), then you absolutely MUST read all the paperwork before signing. It probably would be good to have an attorney before doing this. I applaud this woman for trying to help other mom's but honestly, a video? Women have been breastfeeding for thousands of years - they should get help with this in person. Now her name and her daughters name and images with the porno are forever. People worldwide have downloaded these images for sure. Suing might get something done, but it will not ever erase this from the net and from all those millions of computers.
Unfortunately the cat's out of the bag now and it will be next to impossible to get that video off the 'net now.........still sounds like a dirty deal on the company's part.....