More info - she wanted R500 000 If you?ve been following the media recently, you?ll know Zigzag was sued for R500 000 over an image published of a young girl in a bikini that appeared without her consent in a 2006 photo feature. As the hubbub dies down, we?d just like to thank you, all our readers, for your unwavering support and clarify what happened. We accepted an image in good faith from one of our regular freelance photographers at the time. It was a photo of a girl in a bikini, facing away from the camera and walking into the water on a public beach, exactly as she had appeared. Had we known that she was a minor or no consent had been given to the photographer, we would not have used the photo as a matter of principle. But we did not double-check this, and for that we do apologise unreservedly ? to the girl, her family, and of course our readers. But there was absolutely no malicious intent from Zag?s side, nor did we feel that the image or the context it appeared in was derogatory or defamatory. The photo ran alongside a surf shot within a 16 page photo feature with a graphic icon saying ?100% Pure Surfing Filth? (not ?Pure Filth? as commonly reported) stamped randomly across all 16 pages. The majority of these were filled with waves, surfers ripping, and the odd beach scene. It was a generic, common surfing title for the entire photo feature and was run with the full belief it would be understood positively. The caption itself read ?All natural Eastern Cape honey (beauty)?. It was definitely not Zag?s intent for it to be interpreted as anything ?sleazy? or something that would reflect negatively on the people portrayed. That?s not the style or tone of the feature, or our mag. Regardless, we accept and respect the decision of the court who found in the girl?s favour, and Judge Dennis Davis has ordered Zigzag to pay R10 000 in damages.
