# Talk:The Guy Game

The court case, a 17 year old girl had a fake ID and was in an adults only club. She allowed herself to be filmed topless for a video game. Later, she sues the company saying she was humiliated and the footage was used without her permission when she was underage? She won the case and the game is now edited. Apparently, the young woman also planned to go to college, have a career and be active in community and church. Does anyone else think this case is really strange? 131.202.139.61 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this information? ~ Hibana 23:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the article and check out the links. If you search for the game and the controversy on the internet, you can find all that info. FuturamaFan 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

has part 2 now been squashed due to the lawsuit? theguygame.com no longer exists either even though the logo is plastered all over the game.

but they still should not have banned it. Did she say in court she had a fake i.d? Did she get in any trouble for it? Wouldnt that have caused more embarrassment than someone playing and MAYBE recognizing your the one flashing your breasts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.174.176 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey i heard of a case where a girl gets pregnate raping a guy and she sues him for child suport and wins.Shit happens.BTW its an ok game i liked it for like 20 bucks.69.220.1.137 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
.It's not a matter of her being embarrased, it's a matter of they have (legaly defined) gratitous sexual imagery of an underage girl in the game. It doesn't matter if it's by one year, one month, or one day. It's child pornography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.240.191 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 
Reply to the guy above me:
Actually it is ONLY a matter of her being embarrassed (and a claim that she wasn't properly informed about how the image was going to be used), NOT child porn. Nudity (in this case, exposing her breasts) is not defined as pornography by itself. In order to be guilty of the crime of producing child pornography under US federal law, the image must contain more than just exposed breasts. It must contain exposed genitals and the image must show the genitals in a manner that makes them the focus of the image (the part of the image that the photographer is clearly trying to draw the viewer's eyes to). The images that the 17 year-old girl was involved in, in this game, do not rise to the level of child pornography as defined in US federal law. If a crime had been committed, she would not have been suing them, she would be calling the cops on them. There is a big difference between criminal court and civil court. If the images of the 17 year old in The Guy Game were child porn as you are claiming, then the Gugenheim Art Museum in New York City would be violating the law for having these photos http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/3808 but they AREN'T violating the law, which is why those photos still are in that art museum, and nobody is sitting in prison because of those photos.
Animedude5555 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Image:The Guy Game.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of the 17-year old, wouldn't all copies featuring her be classified as child pronography? If so, not only would this game be banned, but it would also be illegal to own. This should be definitely be added to the article, but I'm not sure where the best way to go about it. The Legacy (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That'd need to be in reliable sources though. Remember to avoid WP:OR. Lordtobi (✉) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benjaminkirsc: Names don't need to be words; "Topheavy" might be messy, but so is "Top Heavy". It's also "Microsoft" not "Micro Soft". Of course, MobyGames is not a reliable source, it merely serves as a provider for a scan of the box, which shows the legal name and logo of the developer. The website and logo of the company also echo this spelling. Reliable sources that reflect this are plenty and easy to find.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Obviously, some reliable sources also got it wrong, but the number that did so is far lower than those who got it right (Google tells me 920 "Top Heavy" vs. 3,050 "Topheavy" ones). Add a few press releases[17][18] to the mix and we can be certain that the developer is called "TOPHEAVY Studios", Wikipedia-ized as "Topheavy Studios". Please stick to WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, and provide reliable sources before asking others to do so, especially when changing a name that had been in place for years. Lordtobi (✉) 12:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I forgot that Top Heavy was actually Topheavy. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)