GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Getting ALOT of heat to take down a public nudity pics on my site! (Pic inside)

fiveyes · 03-19-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
I wouldnt be surprised if having that girl sue is a publicity stunt.First off from what I heard ggw is staged all those girls are hired by ggw. Thats not real girls just getting crazy. Did you watch the VH! thing on it all those girls getting off the tour bus with the girls gone wild crew. Just saying your site is in the house doesnt do it, if they got a ticket when they paid to come in and on that ticket it stated that they give up all rights to their image to your site, then maybe. Also you are taking someone pics to sell via memberships to your adult site, without a model consent you have no rights to use those photographs. Now if you didnt take the cheapo way and paid a girl to be in the contest. You could get the cool photos and have the rights to use it The taking photos of a public thing only works if you are a newspaper not for a porn site.I had a friend that had a dance and a lingerie show the pics of the dance and lingerie show where published in a adult magazine. THe pic of the girl was in a full length robe showing nothing. She sued my friend and won. Also do you really want to cause a shit storm in Nebraska , I assume if the locals set their sights on you. You could be in a world of shit .

Your posting reveals some common misconceptions and ignorance of an industry that I've worked within for over 8 years. I'm speaking from a position of over 500 hours published videos and three active web sites, none of which has a single model release.

No, not all the girls on GGW were hired. Like many event crews, they do have "house bimbos" that do staged and (sometimes) scripted scenes but most of their material has been the nameless girl on the street. Watching them working recently in New Orleans, the cameraman was on a milk carton with his back to a wall on the edge of the crowd. Three of the GGW girls circulated through the crowd to get subjects to pose for them for a promise of beads, cap and/or t-shirt. They also did a quick check of ID and got the signatures on a (very basic!) models release. Once that was done, they were brought to the cameraman who did a quick (recorded) intervere about just how crazy they were willing to get. Finally, the shot was taken and the girls got their goodies. Two other guys were watching a carton of supplies but looked more like bodyguards than stock clerks.

When you say "The taking photos of a public thing only works if you are a newspaper not for a porn site." it shows a complete ignorance of the working basis of event coverage. We are talking about the erotic subset of candid photography, a long established and legitimate use of the camera. There has never been a court decision that agreed with your position, though some recent so-called "video voyeur" legislation has begun to erode some of the fringes of this niche (specifically, candid upskirt material).

There is a distinction between a model and a subject that you are apparently unaware of. The first, with a model's release, enables you to use the product obtained in "fictional settings" (ala bang bus stories) and for commercial purposes (which means, legally, within advertising) while material containing a candid subject must be portrayed truthfully. In other words, I can't say that a gal flashing for beads on Bourbon Street ended up giving me head after I ran out of tape unless she actually did so! But the picture itself, of her public drunken behavior, is otherwise exploitable as long as it's not used in a TV commercial or on the outside of a tape case. There has been some debate within the industry regarding the use of pictures outside of a paysite, along the lines of whether that might be construed as advertising for membership, but (to date) no court cases cover this.

Also, if a ticket is required for admission, which was most likely the case at "a dance and a lingerie show", it is NOT a public event. To safely publish coverage of a paid entrance event, the requirement is a written release from the event organizers. Lacking that, I doubt any publisher would even consider the pictures. In fact, the vetting process for magazines usually even precludes the use of Mardi Gras material unless it's obtained the way I described the current GGW operation. Working within a club setting, such as covering a wet t-shirt contest, can be construed as a public event, but that's pushing it since bars and clubs are legally considered "restricted public access facilities" (you have to be of a certain age to enter, you can be expelled and/or barred from entrance, and there may be a cover charge). Permission from the location owner is usually required and is a necessity if the place is identifiable in the material.

The ending of your post is the only bit I can agree with, there's no sense in having a community turn against you over a blurry picture.