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

Thats fucked up.

Especially for us content producers!

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

Here's the video: Link

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? :1orglaugh

welp, www.mobog.com is fucked! lol

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

not really.

serious crime, heh?

people in porn who voted for dubya :321GFY

this is only the beginning

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. :2 cents:

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

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

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

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 :Graucho

It would be nice if pud came along and explain to me whats the point of that site :Graucho
I have a feeling it's just for fun...

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

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. :thumbsup

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

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.

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

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

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

http://www.mobog.com/heloo19

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.

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

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

more business for out of US webmasters soon

I agree and I am suspicious of their intent.

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

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.

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.

:(

People in GENERAL that voted for bush :321GFY

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. :2 cents:

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.

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

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

http://www.lightspeedgalleries.com/f.../images/30.jpg

i wish that pic had sniff vision

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

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

http://www.webmastertour.com/picture...images/114.jpg

]http://www.webmastertour.com/picture...images/116.jpg

People that are into upskirts are wierd !

that's what i was thinking.

really don't think so.

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

:1orglaugh