Heard the rumors too. The guy apparently filmed it secretly. He's from Hawaii. I say who cares. I like porn just as much as the next guy. But after all of the "celebrity" sex tapes that I've seen I could care less. They are all boring (with the possible exception of 30-60 seconds of the Pam and Tom tape), not to mention Britney is not hot anymore and probably boring as fuck in the sack. All this adds up to "who gives a flying fuck"?
Once again, unless Britney signs off a model release and provides 2257 documentation, it can't be easily used commercially. That she was apparently drunk and passed on somewhere on the tape would also suggest that she wasn't in condition to consent to filming (to fill the model release) and understand what it meant.
Major ass lawsuit, and not very much upside on this one. Load it up on your chinese tube sites and call it even.
Once again, unless Britney signs off a model release and provides 2257 documentation, it can't be easily used commercially. That she was apparently drunk and passed on somewhere on the tape would also suggest that she wasn't in condition to consent to filming (to fill the model release) and understand what it meant.
Major ass lawsuit, and not very much upside on this one. Load it up on your chinese tube sites and call it even.
Bullshit!
Do you really need a model release to use the content? Do you need to give consent? I don't think so. The contenet is always owned by the photographer because the photographer created the photo - not the people in it.
You don't really need 2257 - Everyone knows she's legal. Might foul you up in 2257 laws but that's gonna be the least of his problems....
Do you really need a model release to use the content? Do you need to give consent? I don't think so. The contenet is always owned by the photographer because the photographer created the photo - not the people in it.
You don't really need 2257 - Everyone knows she's legal. Might foul you up in 2257 laws but that's gonna be the least of his problems....
Rochard,
You are wrong on that one...It's called 'Right to Publicity' or something like that. A photog just can't take a stars pic for and use it for anything you want.
Do you really need a model release to use the content? Do you need to give consent? I don't think so. The contenet is always owned by the photographer because the photographer created the photo - not the people in it.
You don't really need 2257 - Everyone knows she's legal. Might foul you up in 2257 laws but that's gonna be the least of his problems....
Not true Richard-
You should know this better than anyone.
2257 along with two forms of Identification is NEEDED.
Also a release stating she gives her consent to sell her likeness commercially.
You are wrong on that one...It's called 'Right to Publicity' or something like that. A photog just can't take a stars pic for and use it for anything you want.
I'm pretty sure I remember she did...eventually... at least on the first one...not sure on the storage stuff
There was no release on the storage stuff-
That's why the videos haven't seen the light of day....yet.
Although I know people who know some people who represent people that are involved with the lockers contents. I believe someday you WILL see some of that footage, I just don't think you'll see any nudity or sex
Comment