US congress BANS upskirt photo's!! - GoFuckYourself.com

bigunns · 12-10-2004, 10:32 PM

Specifically with camera phones:
In one of its last moves of the year, Congress passed a bill that would levy heavy fines and prison time for anyone who sneaks photos or videos of people in various stages of undress, a problem legislators and activists called the new frontier of stalking.

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-1c71ea843c38

NaughtyRob · 12-10-2004, 10:34 PM

Thats fucked up.

bigunns · 12-10-2004, 10:37 PM

Especially for us content producers!

I bet they target upskirt sites next. What next??

BV · 12-10-2004, 10:37 PM

Here's the video: Link

Dirty Dane · 12-10-2004, 10:39 PM

I can understanding protecting peoples privacy, but

"Conviction could lead to a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both"

is a little too much, isn't it?

Spudstr · 12-10-2004, 10:39 PM

welp, www.mobog.com is fucked! lol

- Jesus Christ - · 12-10-2004, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spudstr
welp, www.mobog.com is fucked! lol

They might have to update thier AUP but they are not fucked.

Babagirls · 12-10-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Dane
I can understanding protecting peoples privacy, but

"Conviction could lead to a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both"

is a little too much, isn't it?

not really.

Dirty Dane · 12-10-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Babagirls
not really.

serious crime, heh?

skillfull · 12-10-2004, 10:56 PM

people in porn who voted for dubya

this is only the beginning

potter · 12-10-2004, 11:03 PM

Makes sense. It seriously is stalking and crosses a line for those who do it out in public, I don't like but agree with the law and punishment.

Although, for the industry. Any "upskirt" or like shots should not be made illegal or banned. If it's a serious buisness, paper work is filed and there are contracts for the photos.

DX · 12-10-2004, 11:24 PM

hard to believe some of you people have a problem with this.

dcortez · 12-10-2004, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skillfull
people in porn who voted for dubya

this is only the beginning

I did not vote for dubya...

I don't have a problem with a law that prevents photogs from peeping and publishing.

If you don't have a model release, it's not your content to use for commercial purposes - regardless of the nature.

-Dino

minimouse · 12-10-2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spudstr
welp, www.mobog.com is fucked! lol

Infact I never got the point of that site...
whats the point??

Jakke PNG · 12-10-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by minimouse
Infact I never got the point of that site...
whats the point??

By looking at it 10 seconds just now, I could imagine it's a site where people send their pictures they took with their cellphone cameras

minimouse · 12-11-2004, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TeenGodFather
By looking at it 10 seconds just now, I could imagine it's a site where people send their pictures they took with their cellphone cameras

come on I know that... but whats the point? do you find it cool?
is it a site you'll be back to?

I don't see the point still

minimouse · 12-11-2004, 12:13 AM

It would be nice if pud came along and explain to me whats the point of that site

I have a feeling it's just for fun...

BV · 12-11-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcortez
If you don't have a model release, it's not your content to use for commercial purposes - regardless of the nature.

-Dino

That's insane, I Guess "National Geographic" magazine will have to shut down if you were in charge. Good thing this is the United States and we have the Bill of Rights.

dcortez · 12-11-2004, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
That's insane, I Guess "National Geographic" magazine will have to shut down if you were in charge. Good thing this is the United States and we have the Bill of Rights.

NG magazine does not sneak into peoples' bedrooms or up grass skirts - they photograph the public without infringing on any expectations of privacy on the parts of the subjects.

If women walk around topless in public (as they often do on my island in the summer) that is not the same as snapping shots in a changing room or using a hidden camera.

I had a major TV production crew come up from Los Angeles (that's in the US isn't it) to do a segment, and for their production, not only did they get releases for every model and person in the shots, but they even got property releases for any buildings which were in the scenes (however briefly).

The degree to which releases are obtained depends on the nature of the project and the professionalism of the producers. Using public footage for 'news' is more lax but even so, any news reporter will get you to release the interview right there on the spot.

If one is doing a research documentary in Africa, a professional will seek out releases from on-camera participants wherever possible.

If you're suggesting that NG magazine produces its features without having their paperwork in place, I believe you are mistaken.

-Dino

Jace · 12-11-2004, 12:33 AM

while i think the fines are harsh, i do agree with the legislation....some random pervert on the street SHOULD get in trouble for snapping pics off his camera phone of some girls panties who has no idea...

if you want this type of content, MAKE IT, don't bitch when they outlaw the perverted form of it

dcortez · 12-11-2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
while i think the fines are harsh, i do agree with the legislation....some random pervert on the street SHOULD get in trouble for snapping pics off his camera phone of some girls panties who has no idea...

if you want this type of content, MAKE IT, don't bitch when they outlaw the perverted form of it

Exactly.

This law does not impact legitimate upskirt sites.

The only whiners are going to be the stalker/pervert types and those whose 'business model' is based on generating content without a production budget.

Shooting pictures in public (for non news/documentary purposes) and posting it to a commercial site is akin to scanning magazines and using that content on a site.

-Dino

BV · 12-11-2004, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcortez
If you're suggesting that NG magazine produces its features without having their paperwork in place, I believe you are mistaken.

-Dino

I was merely giving you an example that contradicted your previous statement:

quote: "If you don't have a model release, it's not your content to use for commercial purposes - regardless of the nature."

NG came to mind first (amongst dozens) from a program I recently viewed on the Discovery Channel. It was a piece on the "Afghan Girl".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...2_sharbat.html

The photog had no release.

Warden · 12-11-2004, 01:24 AM

Fuck, this is just another step to create a precedence to come after the adult industry

bdld · 12-11-2004, 01:27 AM

its a good move, you shouldnt be allowed to take compromising pictures of women without their consent.

Freakster · 12-11-2004, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by minimouse
Infact I never got the point of that site...
whats the point??

You won't see stuff like that anywhere else...

http://www.mobog.com/heloo19

latinasojourn · 12-11-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
while i think the fines are harsh, i do agree with the legislation....some random pervert on the street SHOULD get in trouble for snapping pics off his camera phone of some girls panties who has no idea...

if you want this type of content, MAKE IT, don't bitch when they outlaw the perverted form of it

ditto.

only a fucking fool thinks it's appropriate to invade the privacy of other people.

makes you wonder if some of these asswipes have any humanity.

no wonder the general public thinks smut peddlers are human debris.

Repetitive Monkey · 12-11-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdld
its a good move, you shouldnt be allowed to take compromising pictures of women without their consent.

You mean, "people", don't you?

dcortez · 12-11-2004, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
I was merely giving you an example that contradicted your previous statement:

quote: "If you don't have a model release, it's not your content to use for commercial purposes - regardless of the nature."

NG came to mind first (amongst dozens) from a program I recently viewed on the Discovery Channel. It was a piece on the "Afghan Girl".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...2_sharbat.html

The photog had no release.

There will always be exceptions to any case - the spirit of the importance of obtaining consent and proper ID (especially with 2257) of all participants is the point.

From your comments, I am curious...

is BV Cash fully 2257 compliant?

ie. do you have model releases and IDs for all the content on your sites?

-Dino

BV · 12-11-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcortez
There will always be exceptions to any case - the spirit of the importance of obtaining consent and proper ID (especially with 2257) of all participants is the point.

From your comments, I am curious...

is BV Cash fully 2257 compliant?

ie. do you have model releases and IDs for all the content on your sites?

-Dino

I have releases and ID's for every bit of content that I need it for.

I don't need releases and ID's for all the content on my site. You knew that already though. Didn't you?

For example: www.xrayhunter.com/index2.php I need model releases because the nature of the infrared technology requires it. There is something called "reasonable expectation of privacy". They don't expect to have people looking thru their clothes.

On the flip side: www.nudebeachmovies.com/index2.php I don't need any releases. Girls laying out naked on a public nude beach don't have a reasonablle expectation of privacy. You should know all this already.

Nice try!

BV

Manowar · 12-11-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skillfull
people in porn who voted for dubya

this is only the beginning

more business for out of US webmasters soon

ustc9507 · 12-11-2004, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Warden
Fuck, this is just another step to create a precedence to come after the adult industry

I agree and I am suspicious of their intent.

dcortez · 12-11-2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
I don't need releases and ID's for all the content on my site. You knew that already though. Didn't you?

On the flip side: www.nudebeachmovies.com/index2.php I don't need any releases. Girls laying out naked on a public nude beach don't have a reasonablle expectation of privacy. You should know all this already.

BV

I don't know of any CC processor currently which does not require that ALL models on a site be 18 and over.

Without model releases and proper ID, how can you prove that?

-Dino

bigunns · 12-11-2004, 10:48 AM

Xrayhunter.com VERY COOL SITE!!!

How do you get model releases from chicks on the beach if you tell them they have just been xrayed?? Or do you use your own girls?

BV · 12-11-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigunns
Xrayhunter.com VERY COOL SITE!!!

How do you get model releases from chicks on the beach if you tell them they have just been xrayed?? Or do you use your own girls?

Thanks, it's the only legal xray site that I know of.

Xrayhunter's content is staged and shot with models.

Bama · 12-11-2004, 11:07 AM

I can't believe some of you folks have an issue with this new law. Did you folks miss out on some ethics classes while growing up?

The ones that bitch "they've gone to far" are the same people that bitch "they didn't do enough" when shit goes downhill....

There is an INCREDIBLE difference between making your own upskirt content and sneaking your own upskirt content.

Since it seems a few of you have had head trauma accidents while not having proper use of head gear...

If the model knows you're taking the picture before you take it and allows it - the law won't effect you

If the model doesn't know you're taking the picture and you've made any attempt to keep the model from knowing the pictures are being taken - you're just the kind of person the law was put into effect for.

Yes, that's a simplistic analogy - but for the truely clueless - it has to be broken down to a level they'll understand.

TheFrog · 12-11-2004, 11:19 AM

Morgan · 12-11-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skillfull
people in porn who voted for dubya

this is only the beginning

People in GENERAL that voted for bush

BV · 12-11-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcortez
I don't know of any CC processor currently which does not require that ALL models on a site be 18 and over.

Without model releases and proper ID, how can you prove that?

-Dino

First you try to suggest that I'm not complient with 2257 laws, and were wrong.

You lost your 2257 arguement and now you want to say I am not VISA complient? Do yourself a favor and worry about your own shit. I'm not breaking any laws over here.

Workshop_Willy · 12-11-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by potter
Makes sense. It seriously is stalking and crosses a line for those who do it out in public, I don't like but agree with the law and punishment.

Although, for the industry. Any "upskirt" or like shots should not be made illegal or banned. If it's a serious buisness, paper work is filed and there are contracts for the photos.

As to the nature of the legislation, obviously this all comes down to whether or not the subject consents to the photos, and also (of course) documentation as described above. This after all is the purpose of model releases, is it not?

If a person is being upskirted without their consent, that is stalking. It doesn't entail the potential for violence that the traditional connotation of the word entails, but it is still an invasion of privacy.

If this holds true, then there isn't anything to worry about vis-a-vis "upskirt" shots that have associated documentation. The legislation is dead in the water.

The smart thing to do, assuming that the legislation does not try to nullify legal upskirt shooting, is to support the legislation. Any other position calls into question the legitmacy of ANY 2257-compliant content.

pornguy · 12-11-2004, 11:47 AM

That is one more tool that they are sharpening to use against the adult industry.

SteveLightspeed · 12-11-2004, 12:21 PM

What if you are filming the sky, and they ACCIDENTALLY walk over your camera?

BV · 12-11-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lightspeed
What if you are filming the sky, and they ACCIDENTALLY walk over your camera?

i wish that pic had sniff vision

Workshop_Willy · 12-11-2004, 02:41 PM

Hopefully this isn't old news for everyone, but I just talked with another webmaster friend of mine whose girlfriend is a legal-eagle of 8 years. Her interpretation of the legislation is that even if the upskirts are 2257 compliant and fully documented, they would still be illegal if they imply that the photos were taken surreptitiously.

That's going too far, IMHO

SteveLightspeed · 12-11-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Workshop_Willy
Hopefully this isn't old news for everyone, but I just talked with another webmaster friend of mine whose girlfriend is a legal-eagle of 8 years. Her interpretation of the legislation is that even if the upskirts are 2257 compliant and fully documented, they would still be illegal if they imply that the photos were taken surreptitiously.

That's going too far, IMHO

That will never hold up --- good ol 1st admendment --- my upskirt pictures are my way of artistically expressing myself. And modeling for upskirt pics is also covered by freedom of expression. This law won't be used except to deter creepies from upskirting unsuspecting women.

Women, just our of curiousity -- if you wear a short skirt, are you really so HORRIFIED if someone sees your panties or ass? I know lots of women that like to show off a bit...

Steve Lightspeed

Odie · 12-12-2004, 07:36 AM

very well said Steve..what you do is creative and is classy

Dugmor · 12-12-2004, 08:39 AM

]

People that are into upskirts are wierd !

jimmyf · 12-12-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DX
hard to believe some of you people have a problem with this.

that's what i was thinking.

jimmyf · 12-12-2004, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Warden
Fuck, this is just another step to create a precedence to come after the adult industry

really don't think so.

what it is you have a few asswipes that are the cause of this.

jimmyf · 12-12-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lightspeed
What if you are filming the sky, and they ACCIDENTALLY walk over your camera?

12-10-2004, 10:32 PM	#1
bigunns Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 189	US congress BANS upskirt photo's!! Specifically with camera phones: In one of its last moves of the year, Congress passed a bill that would levy heavy fines and prison time for anyone who sneaks photos or videos of people in various stages of undress, a problem legislators and activists called the new frontier of stalking. http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-1c71ea843c38 __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

12-10-2004, 10:34 PM	#2
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	Thats fucked up. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

12-10-2004, 10:37 PM	#3
bigunns Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 189	Especially for us content producers! I bet they target upskirt sites next. What next?? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

12-10-2004, 10:39 PM	#6
Spudstr Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: In a Tater Patch Posts: 2,321	welp, www.mobog.com is fucked! lol __________________ Managed Hosting - Colocation - Network Services Yellow Fiber Networks icq: 19876563

12-10-2004, 10:56 PM	#10
skillfull Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Quebec Calisse Posts: 4,716	people in porn who voted for dubya this is only the beginning __________________ mind at underdark dot cc SEO Analyst Thunder-Ball.net - Member

12-10-2004, 10:37 PM	#4
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	Here's the video: Link

12-10-2004, 10:39 PM	#5
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	I can understanding protecting peoples privacy, but "Conviction could lead to a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both" is a little too much, isn't it?

12-10-2004, 11:03 PM	#11
potter Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Denver Posts: 6,559	Makes sense. It seriously is stalking and crosses a line for those who do it out in public, I don't like but agree with the law and punishment. Although, for the industry. Any "upskirt" or like shots should not be made illegal or banned. If it's a serious buisness, paper work is filed and there are contracts for the photos. __________________

12-10-2004, 11:24 PM	#12
DX Feed me coffee. Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Massafuckingchusetts Posts: 1,128	hard to believe some of you people have a problem with this.

12-11-2004, 12:13 AM	#17
minimouse Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Home Posts: 1,493	It would be nice if pud came along and explain to me whats the point of that site I have a feeling it's just for fun... __________________ Dead

12-11-2004, 12:33 AM	#20
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	while i think the fines are harsh, i do agree with the legislation....some random pervert on the street SHOULD get in trouble for snapping pics off his camera phone of some girls panties who has no idea... if you want this type of content, MAKE IT, don't bitch when they outlaw the perverted form of it

12-11-2004, 01:24 AM	#23
Warden Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Valencia, CA Posts: 2,906	Fuck, this is just another step to create a precedence to come after the adult industry __________________ AIM: ZeeRiddler ICQ: 128160005 Warden's MS

12-11-2004, 01:27 AM	#24
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	its a good move, you shouldnt be allowed to take compromising pictures of women without their consent.

12-11-2004, 10:48 AM	#33
bigunns Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 189	Xrayhunter.com VERY COOL SITE!!! How do you get model releases from chicks on the beach if you tell them they have just been xrayed?? Or do you use your own girls? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

12-11-2004, 11:07 AM	#35
Bama Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Redmond, WA Posts: 2,727	I can't believe some of you folks have an issue with this new law. Did you folks miss out on some ethics classes while growing up? The ones that bitch "they've gone to far" are the same people that bitch "they didn't do enough" when shit goes downhill.... There is an INCREDIBLE difference between making your own upskirt content and sneaking your own upskirt content. Since it seems a few of you have had head trauma accidents while not having proper use of head gear... If the model knows you're taking the picture before you take it and allows it - the law won't effect you If the model doesn't know you're taking the picture and you've made any attempt to keep the model from knowing the pictures are being taken - you're just the kind of person the law was put into effect for. Yes, that's a simplistic analogy - but for the truely clueless - it has to be broken down to a level they'll understand. Last edited by Bama; 12-11-2004 at 11:08 AM..

12-11-2004, 11:19 AM	#36
TheFrog Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 4,095

12-11-2004, 11:47 AM	#40
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	That is one more tool that they are sharpening to use against the adult industry. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-11-2004, 12:21 PM	#41
SteveLightspeed Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Lightspeedworld Posts: 7,940	What if you are filming the sky, and they ACCIDENTALLY walk over your camera? __________________ Abra-cadabra!

12-11-2004, 02:41 PM	#43
Workshop_Willy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 452	Hopefully this isn't old news for everyone, but I just talked with another webmaster friend of mine whose girlfriend is a legal-eagle of 8 years. Her interpretation of the legislation is that even if the upskirts are 2257 compliant and fully documented, they would still be illegal if they imply that the photos were taken surreptitiously. That's going too far, IMHO __________________ FREE Retouch - get a gratis from the best there is! Do the Mess-Around...

12-12-2004, 07:36 AM	#45
Odie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The WATER BABY! Posts: 7,040	very well said Steve..what you do is creative and is classy __________________ Odie [email protected] Are you Mobile???? MMACanada ICQ # 166208354 See Who I Am At AdultWhosWho.com!

12-12-2004, 08:39 AM	#46
Dugmor The Traffic Cowboy Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: BP4L - Vice Prez Posts: 7,585	] People that are into upskirts are wierd ! __________________ JesusEmpire - The Most Trusted Mobile Marketing Service SMS Verification codes for 345 websites including: Tinder - Bumble - Twitter - TikTok - Instagram - Facebook Last edited by Dugmor; 12-12-2004 at 08:40 AM..