|
And your right it is not worth a legal battle... eww the thought of disclosure...
|
I find it hard to believe that ggw gets releases on every girl that flashes their tits. One reason being, most girls wouldnt sign a release without getting some big $$$.
|
They sign em, people want to be in the damn things. Its almost like flashing on springer now, it is the in thing to do.
|
uh huh, when i start shooting content, Im going to ask girls to sign a model release for free. Paying models is for suckers.
|
Quote:
|
Tell the DJ you will see him in court.
Plus the two guys sitting behind you will be reporters from the largest papers you can find. She stripped in public, she lost her right of privacy. The US appeals court upheld the right of a neighbor who was selling a video of his neighbors making love in their bedroom. He had to climb a street light pole to shoot the movie, but the judge ruled they did not have the right of privacy even though it was in their home. |
In your prudish community I don't think you want that kind of media exposure at this point over this. Why make yourself a target?
|
Quote:
There IS a reasonable expectation of privacy there. Fucking lawyers. I could see if it was a street level bungalow window, perhaps, but not if the guy had to climb a fucking light pole. |
Quote:
Anyone? Anyone? Let me know. If it's legal, I'm out with my camera to my bosses house tonight....wheee :thumbsup |
Actually you dont need model releases for shooting in public. In some enquirer or tv show interview, the owner of GGW said that he has girls sign one because the show was giving him shit about girls who didnt want to be on camera. Then he started doing that, and also started getting a ton of lawsuits coming his way. A lot of girls saw the show and then saw themself on the video, remembered that they didnt sign anything, so they tried to sue him. GGW wins pretty much everycase that goes to trial. You dont need a model release for shooting in public.
Advertising the girls on box cover is a whole different situation. As for the girl who wants her picture down, I dont see the big deal if its only one picture. Back to shooting, Im down here in keywest. |
There was just a famous case decided on this a few days ago. Not sure if it was ggw or somebody else.
I think the court ruled, that when you flash your tits in public you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, so the chick lost. Whether its worth a legal battle is another question. |
I don't mind a legal battle... I have the resources..... Honestly there are only two major things that i'm worried about....
1) That the local cops will put more heat on the whole indescent exposure in public thing...... as far as flashing goes 2) That it'll make it harder to get girls to flash in public. |
Quote:
|
Shes just flashing her tits, big deal.
|
Quote:
Peace, BV http://bikinivoyeur.com/ggwbus.jpg |
Well this is the line it all boils down to.
"No model release was obtained for the photo in question" So you need to take the photo down. You have to obtain a models release to use them and you didn't do that. It doesn't matter if they knew you were shooting or not. The Judge will look at the fact you didn't have a models release. Oz |
Quote:
but if it was me I'd still take it down anyway out of courtesy. 1 picture/ girl will not make or break you. cheers, BV |
And people wonder why this industry has such a bad reputation...
|
Quote:
What about events that take place on the beach? Anybody can shoot those? Like if a beer company holds some kind of wet T-shirt type of contest on a public beach, anybody has the right to shoot it? |
What freeadultcontent said :thumbsup
|
If the photo was taken at a public event, it is public domain. Anyone can sue about anything, but whether she wins or not is another case. You can always file a public indecency case against her...
|
Call up Howard Stern ...
Cheers, Matt |
Quote:
:eek7 |
Quote:
Hmmm good idea! |
Quote:
If you are an adult webmaster who runs his operation as a business you should heed this advice. And, if you are a "nice" guy you will heed the plea of a young woman who has decided she's made a mistake. Shooting public content is problematic. This particular photo is problematic if this is the only image you have of her. You would be in a better position if included in the shot were a bunch of other people with cameras taking her photo while she was flashing---then there would be no "expectation of privacy" claim. If you do not have any photos of this woman showing additional persons photographing her, or at least show the presence of many photographers around, you are best to remove the pic and move on. |
(I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty well read on these things, and...) Usually the issue is how "public" was the act? If she was on a balcony flashing everybody in the street, she may not be able to sue you for invasion of privacy or any form of defamation, but she may be able to ask for her share of the proceeds, since you are profiting off her image.
If it was on private property and it was well announced not just that you were there, but that you were actively taking pictures, it's a lot less clear to me. Who do you think would be the more sympathetic party in court? Yeah, that's what I think, too. If you want to ignore your attorney, be my guest. I'm going to get my Jiffy Pop. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Stupid board bans the word p.i.c. :321GFY |
Quote:
|
dude, tell her to put it in her ass
|
You should deffinately take your attorneys advice, that's what you pay him for.
|
Take the picture down.
It made you your money. Try to milk the DJ thing for all its worth, then remove the picture. You may not be in this as a nice guy, but its the right thing to do. Unless you have lots of money that wouldnt be better spent elsewhere, that all your records are in perfect conditions and you dont mind the added police pressure. go for it. |
Quote:
|
The images is just a video cap of the contest which had 8 girls flashing the entire bar... and there are pleanty of flashes from other peoples cameras in the video.....
It was VERY public.... My lawyer only told me to take it down because he doesn't think i need any more public attention to what i'm doing..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This reminds me of that case where a burgular broke into someone's home and hurt himself. Then he sued for getting hurt, while stealing and WON! LOL! The system is crooked. And what's up with the law that you have to tell the world if you have a camera on your house, with a sticker. So, the intruders will know to dodge the camera or break it without getting caught? Bullshit. |
Baal is right. You need to use this to get every last bit of exposure, but only in person.
The legal concept is called reasonable expectation of privacy. Normally, if you take pics of someone changing in a store dressing room it is against the law because they could reasonably expect that they would not be watched. She could not reasonably expect privacy in a crowded bar full of drunk college guys and an announced Adult Website. They can try to sue, but it will be tough. What I would do is go on the show. Get him to offer you X to remove the pic. Then, say "ya know what, I think I'm just going to keep it up." Try to bring freedom of speech into it, morons eat that up. If they send you a summons or cease and desist, take it down. Otherwise, enjoy the free publicity. (The above is not the advice of a lawyer or certified legal counsel. It is that of a dirty old man, who should probably be ignored and left to die alone and penniless.) |
Anytime a subject has asked for a picture of themselves to be removed, I've done it. There's too many other pictures that don't have any objections than to get called into court over some gal's regretted drunken moment of indescretion.
However, when it's a guy going on about their sister, co-worker, girl friend or whatever- the picture stays. The white knight bit doesn't work with me. Same thing happens on the street a lot of times- the gal doesn't mind the camera but the macho freak she's with doesn't want any pictures taken. Guess who I listen to?!? |
Here's a story I had saved on my computer about this exact same thing....
------- LOS ANGELES, June 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The producers of the "Girls Gone Wild" videotapes announced today that they have won a court battle in Louisiana. The court recognized that women publicly displaying their breasts allow for the following: no expectation of privacy, consent to being filmed, and that the producers may freely sell the videos. After more than ten months of litigation, the dismissal became final this week when the plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the decision. The lawsuit, filed in July 2001 by three women suing as Jane Does, alleged that that the "Girls Gone Wild" producers invaded their privacy by illegally filming them exposing their breasts at Mardi Gras in February 1999 and using their images without permission. In addition, the women also claimed that the videotapes were being sold without their consent and payment to them. The three women were seeking unspecified monetary damages and a share of all profits from "Girls Gone Wild" video sales, along with an injunction to prevent further sales and distribution of the videos. The "Girls Gone Wild" producers, and other defendants named in the action, requested a dismissal from the Court. Following a New Orleans hearing, Judge C. Hunter King agreed that the action should be dismissed. Judge King made the following comments about the case: -- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out, whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or not it went nationally or locally or household to household." -- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed, Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras. This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going to be shown all over the place." -- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of, let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this, prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will be all over the country at some point, because people from all over the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters." In a similar lawsuit, pending in Tallahassee, Florida, a woman, Becky Lynn Gritzke, is suing the producers of "Girls Gone Wild." Gritzke bared her breasts at a Mardi Gras celebration and is now claiming that the producers invaded her privacy and used her image without permission while she was intoxicated. She also claims that her image from the video was used on the "Girls Gone Wild" cover and in television advertisements without her permission. Like the women in the Louisiana action, Gritzke seeks a monetary payment for being included in the videos sold by the "Girls Gone Wild" producers. Ronald E. Guttman, counsel to the "Girls Gone Wild" producers stated, "The Constitutional and statutory protections which allow for the filming of events on public streets is a bar to Gritzke's claims. I believe that Judge King's analysis in the Louisiana action is indicative of how Gritzke's case ultimately will be decided." Mantra Entertainment is the leading producer and distributor of live-action, reality-based programming in the U.S. Mantra was formed in 1997 when Joe Francis, a former studio producer, recognized the opportunity to develop reality-based, direct-to-consumer video titles that did not fit the traditional mold of studio-distributed product. Over the past five years, the company has established its reputation by creating such key franchises as Banned From Television and "Girls Gone Wild." SOURCE: Mantra Entertainment press release |
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 .
|
Quote:
All I have to say is Girls gone wild. If you want, I will post it up on my site. |
found this on nolo.com someone else posted the link to the site i wa just poking aruonda lil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTION: What rights does a person have if their picture was taken and then posted to an Internet website without their permission? Are they entitled to any profits of the website? Can they sue if the picture was uncomplimentary? ANSWER: A picture may be worth a thousand words, but not necessarily a thousand dollars in legal damages. You can stop the use of your image at a website for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity or defamation. Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner -- for example, your photo was posted at "America's Most Wanted" website. And you are not Wanted -- in the Catch a Criminal sense. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, spying on you at home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph. You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
You dont know that much if you read the posting right above you, which states the law not a opinion. You are under a misconseption that you can take some girls pics who gets wild on the street and put her on a porno site and not get sued. |
Reading comprehension is an asset on message boards, the posting above mine basically went into more detail on the only two issues that matter, and which I touched upon- if you use a picture to portray someone falsely or in advertising you can be held liable.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123