Hypothetically speaking.......?

great new niche ... "Bum Jerk"

I've no idea about the legal aspects, but I'd say it would be better to take that scene off... or maybe blurring his face, that would add a lot to the reality aspect IMHO

wouldn't your friend risk 2257 issues?

lulz at Q!

No more than Girls Gone Wild filming girls flashing on the streets.

I've done this a few times when we shoot at the lake or something, and someone can kind of see us from the other shore, but not enough to really see. Had some Mexicans hooting and hollering and I zoomed across the lake, but it wasn't close enough to see their faces. Had another time on my first site where we were out on a pier on the lake, and the guy was back on the shore, that time you could see his face. lol I cut them out both times.

Not legal advice but: That person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public space/park, even if doing something "illegal."

But isn't the guy jerking off considered hardcore and 2257 would be needed then? I honestly have no idea.

Depending on the site niche...

assuming your friend is filming this girl for a solo site... Id chop it... unless it was a brandi belle like site... if its purely pigtails n bubble gum id take it out...

If the girl has lots of public scenes, possibly... if its one time thing - ditch it...

Who said he was jerking off?

I said "smacking his dick."

I think it would be a great addition to a "bloopers" area if this isn't a planned or regular occurrence.

So that was you shooting?
Tell her she was hot, you on the other hand are a wee bit creepy but whatever floats your boat and as long as you keep your distance.

what if you blurred the face? or is that too tacky?

I would think that either he would stay or go altogether.

Thats a keeper

Not true.... jerking off is a sexual act covered by 2257, flashing breasts are not. This is how the mainstream gets off from keeping records. Mere nudity usually doesnt trigger 2257. Read the Dost case as to what will trigger the record keeping requirements.

As for using his image, without a release I would not. He has no reason to think he will end up in a commercially released video. Even in public, if you use someone's likeness for commercial purposes you still need a signed release, unless you have posted signs everywhere letting people know that walking/rolling into a particular area means that they are consenting to use their likeness. As a general principle, blur out the faces of people you do not have releases on.

Aaron id advise your friend to consult a lawyer....ooooh waiit...

As somebody who is posting as if they are an attorney, one would think you might actually read what has been said instead of simply replying.

Can you ask your friend to elaborate on 'slapping his dick' ?

was his penis there visually? and was he touching it while looking at your friend's model?

Who knows?

When that happens to me i'll let you know

Given the fact that many people object to porn and don't give a shit about
your legal rights I would avoid using anyone in anything without their permission.

No way will that clip make you rich, so it can only cause you trouble with nothing to gain.

you have friends? clients yes, but friends, nah i dont think so.

I got lost...

You clearly say the " cripple " is jerking off to the model

The risk FAR out weighs the reward so why bother

Valid point.

Hypothetically speaking...The cripple WAS jerking off to the model....However, it's my understanding that the hypothetical video doesn't show the jerking off.

I should have worded that better.

This from a coward using a fake nic.

Could not be more wrong.

And what did I miss ???

or did you clear it up in this post?

Agreed

Sounds like a good niche.I would capitalize on that idea and get more of that content

Make niche in it.

Yup I agree!

I'd like to see some caselaw supporting the "need" for a signed release in a public place.

2257 is for US law. Not in Europe.
Was it in a public place like on a street or park ?
Then it's considered "journalism" in Europe which enjoys the freedom of press.
But you have to decide wether you wanna damage the wheelchair guy in the process by publishing it. I know I wouldn't.

Put it up! That would sell content like a MOFO!

Four panel MGP gallery with her clothed, naked, getting it on, and then him! Fucking type of shit that sells...

In California its called Misappropriation of Likeness and its embodied in Civil Code sec 3344.... there is case law but it would be rather complex to post all the cases....

But here are some cases that might make interesting reading...http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Feb/1/130405.html

3344 makes no exception for public places and actually discusses that if a person can be identified on any public street or building then they can bring a claim as an individual...

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,
merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,
without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the
prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for
any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result
thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the
person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party
or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a
result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized
use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account
in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the
injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the
gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated
this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.
Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.
The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be
entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or
photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live
television transmission, of any person, such that the person is
readily identifiable.
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a
photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can
reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is
the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so
identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall
be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a
definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group
includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at
any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the
audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a
baseball team.
(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as
members of a definable group if they are represented in the
photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the
photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in
any manner.
(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person
using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or
other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only
incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in
which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption
affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain
the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's
photograph or likeness.
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political
campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
under subdivision (a).
(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness
in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material
containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid
advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not
the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or
with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a).
(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees
of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to,
newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations,
cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any
advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is
published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners
or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's
name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this
section.
(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and
shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.