Haha, when I was 18, I apparently fucked a 15 year old that I picked up in a bar.

She looked 18 to me and obviously to others, so that was instantly gonna be my first line of defense.

I think by discussing it on the radio in addition to the public event, he made it newsworthy. You'll have nothing to worry about.

Not that it matters much..... flashing and fucking 2 totally different things....

Flashing is not sexually explicit

If I were you...

I'd call him up and thank him for advertising your site for you (in a genuine manner). Then (with your lawyer's OK), I'd agree to pull the pic IF the DJ agreed to have you come into the studio and discuss the issue (DO NOT talk on-air over the phone; that makes you an easy target)... perfect marketing opportunity to talk about the thousands of similar pics you have available on your site, while massaging his ego over having his girl flash the world (the "she's not alone, tons of other girls do it and we have the content on our site" angle). Pump his ego and be Mr. Nice Guy while at the same time pumping the hell out of your site by mentioning all the other content you have.

I'd turn a potential fight into a sales opportunity. That pic sucks anyhow; wouldn't you rather ditch it in exchange for a hundred new signups via FREE media exposure?

What he said...

WTF... This is a great thread!!!

My first instinct was just take it down. That was what I planned to do if some girl contacted me about a public pic on my site. But after reading this thread, there are some good points about fighting it to create publicity. Local publicity is nothing, If you can get this story national, then you'll be making some bank. If your prepared to play the bad guy, I say go for it.
:thumbsup

Problem Solved:
http://xvoodoo.com/gfy/noface.jpg

My two cents.

The picture is crappy and well it is just a picture. So use it as leverage.

The DJ will let you on the show, trust me. Set up an in person live interview with call ins. Go in this ready and learn to dodge and spin. You may get two interviews out of this if handled properly.

The station will get ratings, so they will go for it, they are just as greedy for ears as we are for clicks.

Be prepared to loose that image. Honestly it is not worth much and you are getting your monies worth and then some.

Now make yourself a nice full page ad, right off of your main URL. On this page set up a voting script. Yet plenty of links to your tour and to the "obscurred" version of that image. Add a nice little see the uncensored verion link as well (make it a join link or a 1.00 link). Maybe even a comments box.

Now the interview will consist of using the peoples (Nebraska) opinion on if you should remove or keep the image. Take calls, mention the URL to the main site as often as possible. Then also plug the voting page. Basicly let the people decide. The polls will remain open for a day or maybe a week, up to you. If it is longer than a day odds are the DJ will plug the poll often to get people to vote. You could arrange for a second interview to announce the results and address the comments that the fpa got.

This would be a very win win for you, and worst case is you loose the crappy picture, which you can remove despite the results just because the DJ was so damn nice about it. (i.e. future interviews, and calls to you whenever an adult topic comes up, you become the local expert).

Flashing your tits in a public place gives that person no reasonable expectation of privacy. Period ! I would leave it but what do I know :1orglaugh

i talked to the guy that was in charge of the ggw crew for the anger management tour this summer. he told me they have EVERY girl sign a release, it may have been diff before... but thats what they do now.

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.

Now *this* sounds like a plan. Screw the other shit - take this idea and run!

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?

Now THAT is bullshit!!

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.

This fucking guy should have been charged with being a peeping Tom. Or is that legal now?

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.

What you said is true, but if you play hardball you best be prepared to have all your records in 100% squeaky clean order. This will include your past few years of TAXES (IRS discovery will be a bitch), and proper model releases for every single pic on every site you own. I'm not saying just give in, I'm just saying don't be a fool if the outcome is not worth it.:2 cents:

Shes just flashing her tits, big deal.

Don't believe everything you hear Quiet. I know for a fact that they do not. I talked and shot right next to the GGW crew this week here in Key West on Duval street and at the beach. They did not hang here long because they were not allowed in any of the good clubs where we were shooting and the real action was. RealWildGirls.com (whom I am shooting with this week) otherwise known as (Hotwired Content) has this town pretty much wrapped up. (with the exception of the DreamGirls team at Rumrunners). GGW could only shoot in the street and they got a little footage but not much. I chatted with Albert of GGW for a while on the beach, seemed like an all right dude, but business is business and everyone has their local. Theirs wasn't here. :-)

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

just not so,

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...

So is this how the public nudity video biz works? Clubs and bars who host these events make exclusive deals with video production companies? Wonder how much money .......... GGW has big dough, why didn't they just go to the club owners and flash some long green in their face? Guess cuz HotWired and others have exclusive contracts.

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

:eek7

Hmmm good idea!

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.

Dont forget to make him mention the url of your site SEVERAL times during the show:thumbsup

Oz man, you're out of your league on this one. You don't need a release if someone is flashing in public. You don't need to satisfy 2257 if nothing sexually explicit is being d-e-p-i-c-t-e-d.

Stupid board bans the word p.i.c. :321GFY

uh, i don't. where did you get that impression? it was a television interview i watched one night, and that's what he said. i'm not sleeping with the fucking guy...

dude, tell her to put it in her ass