Model Release Question
 

a few years ago at the phoenix forum girls gone wild was at a bar shooting and taped chica flashing. i asked the camera guy how they got the release for stuff like that and he said they film them asking the girl if it's ok if they shoot them.

anyone else use this method? is it different for them because most of the stuff they shoot is in public areas?

Disclaimer: IANAL

1. If during a football match you have cameras taking random shots at people in the audience, you don't actually need releases. AFAIK, nobody gets them in such a situation.
2. HOWEVER, for an adult shoot, even if soft, I would NEVER rely on something like that. Not even in the form of some "verbal model release". Among other things, you can easily get into 2257 trouble.

Truth told, though, if your information is "a few years old", it is entirely possible that people were more relaxed about this stuff, back then. Laws and customs change. I hear that in the eighties, some early gonzos (of the 'real-ish' type), were actually shot 'impromptu', without even bothering to ask the girls' ages. Unthinkable (and dangerous) today. Don't do it.

Well, it's girls gone wild and with all the the problems they have had in the past with shooting underage girls who gave them fake ID's......I would not listen to a word those idiots had to offer....:2 cents:

I did this on a couple of occasions but I also filmed their Identification to prove that they were of age and had them sign a legal document as well.

In a true Public venue you are supposed to be exempt. However if you can it never hurts to take the time to get the docs and images of ID. It would cost you more not to.

There's a reason GGW has found themselves in hot water regarding under age girls and lawsuits from girls who didn't want to be on camera.

what is she flashes her boobs and later turns out to be 17 years, 11 months and 28 days old?

in most places in old europe nobody would care too much for the thing itself, as mainstream magazines and fashion shows routinely show teenager boobs.

BUT if you are in this business there is no way to avoid strictly complying with U.S. regulations. you may have an american host, american processor, american affiliates, or you may want at some point to sell to an american company, etc etc - and it simply spells too much trouble not having all the 2257 secured.

i would prefer NOT publishing some good content, if I don't have 2257 documents in a drawer - EVEN if i know for sure that a lady is 29yo. :2 cents:

Speaking as a pro who does vidoegraphy at events, clubs and other socials...

You do not need a release if the subjects KNOW you are filming them, if the location is acceptable to the public (the set is not closed), where the subject of the video would be doing what they are doing even if the camera was not there. If someone objects to being videotaped, you can warn them where you will be pointing the camera and then designate a place where the camera will not be pointed at.

However, you may need a location release from the owner or event coordinator.

I was thinking about the 2257 reporting on this issue. Lets say you go to the local strip cub, and the girls there start doing a g/g thing. You know that everyone there is over 21, the owner checks ID's at the door, and you are good with them. So you whip out your pocket HD camrea and shoot some hot stuff for your website. So do you need a 2257 reporting for an event that was not of your creation, where it was open to the public (who is over 21), and they would have done that scene anyway without the camera.

Now I think that this is one situation where it is immune to the 2257 reporting, and any liability for the age of the girls would fall on the owner of the club. In short, you are saying that the club has the age records and anyone who inquires should look there.

However, it is always good insurance to get a copy of the ID if you can. Most people who are OK with being filmed being naked and nasty have no problems with that.

Then you better have deep pockets to pay a very good attorney....:2 cents:

If anything, I would run this information by your attorney and never depend on a chat board for legal information ;)
Not trying to disparage anyone here.....just saying.

interesting point! so i take it all gloryhole content is not really anonymous?

...that was actually the point i was trying to make... :)

http://www.damnimcute.com/wp-content...oe-francis.jpg

On a related note, how is married life treating/affecting Joe Francis?

He hasn't been in the news for weeks... :helpme

ADG

It depends if you want a civil court case involving yourself an underage girl and a ambulance chasing lawyer. Or a pissed off rich Father.

Whose to prove the girl said it was OK for you to publish the content?

i'm not saying this doesn't work in legal _theory_ (i don't know if it does)
BUT I would prefer not having to explain this reasonable theory to a local attorney looking for headlines as porn-buster :2 cents:

How many girls really go to gloryholes to anonymously suck and fuck cocks? I think it is reasonable to assume that the gloryhole girls are paid actresses and are engage in sexual acts for the explicit purposes of making pornography...and that is what triggers the 2257 reporting and need for model release.

If you so happen to catch a gal in an adult arcade who is there to have fun and does not mind you taping her then you are free from the reporting since what you are shooting is a documentary. Again, it would be the responsibility and liability of the adult bookstore/arcade owner to check ID's.

Law is always about the Intent (the mindset) of the persons who engage in an action. Pornography is then:

"Pornography is the portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. It is words, acts, or representations that are calculated to stimulate sex feelings independent of the presence of another loved and chosen human being. It is divorced from reality in its sole purpose to stimulate erotic response. It is preoccupied with and concentrates on sex organs for the purpose of sexual stimulation. It emphasizes them and focuses on them in varying ways calculated to incite sexual desire.

Art and pornography are distinguished as follows: True art conveys a thought, a speculation, or a perception about the human condition. Pornography is the pictures of sex organs and their usage devoid of all other meaning-the personality having no place. They bear in upon one a sense of increasing ugliness and degradation of the human being."
City of Youngstown v. DeLoreto (USA, 1969)

Now if you where invited to a Sex Party where you where to Document what happened, then you would be filming a documentary, and that is not pornography at all. So the guys who film girls going down on each other at a strip club are documenting, not making pornography. Though it is how you film the scene too. If you focus only on the sex organs, then it is pornography where as if you focus on the scene as a whole and explore more than just the sex then it is a documentary.

Adult films vs pornography is also a good discussion. Is a films like "this ain't the Brades" an artistic adult film or is it pornography? It has a storyline, it is not just images of pictures of sex devoid of all other meaning, and it is not ugly or degrading since we know the purpose and the scene that the sex takes place in. However, the sex scenes if just cut from the film to stand alone would be pornography.

In my mind there is far more value in art than there is pornography, but art is a lot of work and it take far more resources to achieve whereas porn is cheap.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. :upsidedow

i was referring to the guys on the other side of the hole. i'm assuming if you pay a girl to do a gloryhole scene then you'd need 2257 and model release for the guys.