Laws on "Flashing" pics... - GoFuckYourself.com

eRock · 08-09-2001, 03:14 PM

Can anyone give me some kinda an idea on what the laws are for public flashing pics? Hypothetically, if I were to go up to a girl & ask to take her pic as she flashed me & she willingly did it, & then posted the pics on a site, what am I in for? Do I need them to sign a realease or what?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Dirty F · 08-09-2001, 04:06 PM

Hi,
I am no copyright or law specialist at all. I just had a small leason at school a while back about this. And basicly it comes down to this: You shoot a pic ---> the pic is yours. Ofcourse there are certain rules, you cannot intrude in someones house and shoot away, im talking about public pictures. Newspapers, the television news, it happens everywhere. Thats all i know about it, i hope somebody can fill it in some more.

eRock · 08-09-2001, 04:20 PM

Thanks, Battuss.

Anyone else have any helpful info...?

Rocky · 08-09-2001, 04:24 PM

not 100% sure of this

but i think you have to have the person sign a model release form in order for you to have the consent to reproduce the images for the purpose of making money

in which case the person signing the form has to agree to the terms (payment or not)

Lane · 08-09-2001, 04:40 PM

if you shoot a celebrity's pic, nude on a beach for example, you can sell it to magazines..
this happens all the time, and i dont think they ask those peoples permissions..

i would say it's legal,

just my opinion tho

------------------
Best Free CJ script

icq: 6757061

B40 · 08-09-2001, 04:42 PM

Signing a model release form would be too much of a hassle for one pic. But, if you want to be on the safe side, then you should get her to sign it, and go through the whole process.

------------------
Cold Sex Partnership - Free Content - 60%

fiveyes · 08-09-2001, 05:17 PM

A lot of confusion exists in people's minds on this, but after working that particular niche now since 1995, I might can add something to this discussion.

If you don't have a signed model's release, you have to be very careful what you do with the image. Civil law says you may not use another person's image for commercial purposes w/o their permission. But that doesn't say you can't make money selling it, it means you can't use their image to *sell something*. In other words, a person's picture can be used in a newspaper w/o a release even though the newspaper is making money from it's content, which includes the image. But if the image was used to sell a copy of the newspaper, then a release is required. (This does NOT apply to celebrities, btw! Any unauthorised use of their image can be considered commercial since they can show a professional interest in their likeness.)

Also, the use of the image is restricted to truthful depictions. In other words, a model's release usually includes a clause that allows the publisher to present the photo in fictionalized settings and you don't have that option without it. So, one's approach has to be strictly journalistic with such images.

And, you have to steer WAY clear of 18 USC 2257! That is to say, a site with these type of images on it can have NO XXX posed scenes mixed in with them. ABSOLUTELY NONE! Otherwise, you may be either found guilty of fictionalizing the indidual by implying they would or did such behavior themselves OR run the risk of being required to furnish the 2 copies of ID for that individual. A Mardi Gras flasher site, for example, shouldn't even have hardcore banners on it nor direct links to any XXX sites.

Another consideration, which has grown in recent years, is privacy issues. If both you and the subject are on public property, your camera is in plain view and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at the moment, you're free to record the moment.

Finally, I'm not a lawyer and nothing said here should be used as a substitute for a lawyer's advice. If you want to go this direction, get one that specializes in 1st Admendment law as it applies to news publications. He cannot only guide you along what is a very narrow path, but can help you get press credentials (a very good thing to have if you choose this route!).

pimplink · 08-09-2001, 05:38 PM

They must sign a release. You have to have it in writing that they understood that their image will be shown to the general public and for commercial purposes.

There's a pending class action lawsuit against the people who produced the drunk college girls video that you see advertised on cable TV. Looks like a fat lawsuit too.
Hopefully, the guys who run that company formed a corporation so they don't incur personal liability.

Good luck!

Quote:

Originally posted by eRock:
Can anyone give me some kinda an idea on what the laws are for public flashing pics? Hypothetically, if I were to go up to a girl & ask to take her pic as she flashed me & she willingly did it, & then posted the pics on a site, what am I in for? Do I need them to sign a realease or what?

Any help would be much appreciated.

TheMan · 08-09-2001, 05:53 PM

I saw a thing on tv and it was about the girls gone wild video. These guys go out and don't even tell all the girls what they are gonna do with the pics.

So I would say it's legal. I don't think they are running around these places making every girl that flashes sign a paper.

TheMan

fiveyes · 08-09-2001, 06:00 PM

pimplink, as I tried to stress in my posting, it *is* a pretty narrow path that has to be followed. And, afais, they strayed quite a ways from it! Oh, and I'd appreciate any links you have regarding that lawsuit too, I haven't been able to find any mention of this yet outside of the bbs.

Also, as far as being incorporated, anyone who isn't behind at least an LLC in any aspect of the adult business is a fool...

Dirty F · 08-09-2001, 06:27 PM

Hmmm..there are tons of sites with these kind of pics. What about the voyeurweb.com, the biggest voyeur site on the web. Not only do they have public nudity but also real voyeur stuff, toilets, showers you name it. And to put a cherry on top, they mix it (indirect) with porn sites (their other site Redclouds). They seem to get away with it. Im damn happy i live in holland and you dont get sued for a fart

dank · 08-09-2001, 07:40 PM

If you take the pictures in view of others in public on public property with or without any kind of permission.....it is legal.

I know that both DreamGirls and GirlsGoneWild both use model releases when they get the model alone somewhere but they don't need it when shooting in public.

However the one risk you take by shooting someone nude in public is if later it's proved that the person you took pics of was under 18. Then owning that pic could get you in trouble.

TheFLY · 08-09-2001, 09:32 PM

Our naked physiology is a mysteriously true manifestation of our soul -- in plain view for all to see what lies beneath... for the sheath lies not -- and the disease of neurosi breathes with ease through the bones and flesh and in pigment and in death -- each curve tells a story within a story and each protrusion an allusion to the man or woman apart from the space that lies between us... space sandwiched by oceans of sealed flesh posed fresh with each new day and swelled anew with each new sway of what our mouths have yet to dispell or could possibly know how to say.

-- TheFLY

FUCK YOU ALL!

------------------

...from the nectar of the Bone flows all that clicks...

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 12:50 AM

A friend of mine works at one of the law firms that got approached by one of the "damaged parties" regarding filing a class action. The firm turned the job down but apparently its being shopped around, so it's still pending.

I agree with you re the LLC/Corp form re protection from civil lawsuits.

Quote:

Originally posted by fiveyes:
pimplink, as I tried to stress in my posting, it *is* a pretty narrow path that has to be followed. And, afais, they strayed quite a ways from it! Oh, and I'd appreciate any links you have regarding that lawsuit too, I haven't been able to find any mention of this yet outside of the bbs.

Also, as far as being incorporated, anyone who isn't behind at least an LLC in any aspect of the adult business is a fool...

fiveyes · 08-10-2001, 07:47 AM

--Pimplink
Mmmmm, I could point out that their being turned down by a law firm says something on the subject in itself.

Check this out - http://www.dnai.com/~pcombs/carwash.html . It gives a look inside how ambush reporting works, where the subject most definitely does NOT want their image used. Down at the end he says the same thing my lawyer tells me- if I'm told by the subject that I don't have permission to use their image, then I can't. But, this has to be said *at that time*, after the fact doesn't count.

The case law that covers this is found under the concept of implied consent as it applies to the defined limits of personal privacy (when one leaves home and ventures into public places, a great deal of expectation along these lines is lost). Not to mention the rights of artistic expression and of the press.

And don't laugh at that last part, those of us that "cover the uncovered" at special events are reporters in every sense of the word and our offerings fall squarely within alternative media. We're simply photojournalists that dare to go a bit further than most, documenting lewd and lascivious public behavior, and picking up the slack where the establishment either prefers to ignore certain behaviors or feels it is somehow restricted in covering it.

Hey! It's a dirty job but someone has to do it...

Kimmykim · 08-10-2001, 03:09 PM

"no reasonable expectation of privacy at the moment"
-----------------------------

This is the critical phrase in the whole thing -- if you've got a group of girls flashing during Mardi Gras and there are plenty of people taking pics, they cannot expect to have any control over those pics and their actions in public obviously override the privacy consideration.

A very good friend of mine's got some sites with this content on them, and he tells me that there really haven't been any cases that went far enough to set any specific precedent yet --

eRock · 08-13-2001, 09:23 AM

Alright, thanks everyone for the feedback! Considering this will take place in bars/nightclubs I think it'd be in my best interest to talk to a lawyer first.

Thanks,

E

pimplink · 08-13-2001, 09:29 AM

Another legal complication: get the consent of the owner of the premises.

Quote:

Originally posted by eRock:
Alright, thanks everyone for the feedback! Considering this will take place in bars/nightclubs I think it'd be in my best interest to talk to a lawyer first.

Thanks,

E

eRock · 08-13-2001, 09:33 AM

Good point!!! Didn't think of that! That won't be a problem tho.

Gemini · 08-13-2001, 10:33 AM

Do NOT cloud the issue with thinking like a reporter for a print magazine dealing with celebs. A newspaper etc has rights that a site owner does NOT unless its just a news reporting site. Fair use law does NOT cover porn, flash or however you want to juxtapose what a site is.

Betcha have to get a release and you better believe if you cannot prove who and how old someone in a pic is someone name A***roft will have an appointment for you eventually when its dealing with ANY form of sexual pose. That does include nudes in most areas if not all.

fiveyes · 08-13-2001, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eRock:
Alright, thanks everyone for the feedback! Considering this will take place in bars/nightclubs I think it'd be in my best interest to talk to a lawyer first.

Yes, definitely don't consider doing this without a lawyer's advice! And, like pimplink says, you'll need the the owner's permission if you're shooting in a club, with his understanding that you will be publishing the pics.

Also, don't overlook carrying business cards and passing them out to gals in case they ever decide they might want to do some modeling. A lot of companies manage a nice offering of amateur tapes as well their special event coverage...

CDSmith · 08-13-2001, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFLY:
Our naked physiology is a mysteriously...{snip}... yet to dispell or could possibly know how to say.
-- TheFLY
FUCK YOU ALL!

Man, I gotta move me to Californy and get me some of that pacific ganga an smoke it, and get all psychy-dellic-like

Guys, why not just hire a few models, pay them $100 bucks each, and take a bunch of flashing pics of them?? Get signed release forms and you're good to go. I'll be making such content soon, anyone interested? (in purchasing some that is)
___________
CD

* <a href="http://www.erasercash.com/wm.html?ID=1380291" TARGET="_blank">ERASERCASH!</a> Earn $35 per sale + webmaster referrals 4 LEVELS DEEP
* <a href="http://www.topbucks.com/affiliate/clickthru.cgi?id=1448" TARGET="_blank"> $40/signup, $50/recur, 65% partnerships</a> +10% webmaster referral, free content!
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank">Oliver Klozov: 60% signups, 40% rebills</a> +High Quality free content, mthly $$ bonuses

[This message has been edited by CDSmith (edited 08-13-2001).]

eRock · 08-13-2001, 02:10 PM

Not a bad idea! I'm considering any option at this point.

08-09-2001, 03:14 PM	#1
eRock Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chi-town Posts: 3,112	Laws on "Flashing" pics... Can anyone give me some kinda an idea on what the laws are for public flashing pics? Hypothetically, if I were to go up to a girl & ask to take her pic as she flashed me & she willingly did it, & then posted the pics on a site, what am I in for? Do I need them to sign a realease or what? Any help would be much appreciated.

08-09-2001, 04:06 PM	#2
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Hi, I am no copyright or law specialist at all. I just had a small leason at school a while back about this. And basicly it comes down to this: You shoot a pic ---> the pic is yours. Ofcourse there are certain rules, you cannot intrude in someones house and shoot away, im talking about public pictures. Newspapers, the television news, it happens everywhere. Thats all i know about it, i hope somebody can fill it in some more.

08-09-2001, 04:20 PM	#3
eRock Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chi-town Posts: 3,112	Thanks, Battuss. Anyone else have any helpful info...?

08-09-2001, 04:24 PM	#4
Rocky Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Living Off The Grid Posts: 3,022	not 100% sure of this but i think you have to have the person sign a model release form in order for you to have the consent to reproduce the images for the purpose of making money in which case the person signing the form has to agree to the terms (payment or not)

08-09-2001, 04:40 PM	#5
Lane Will code for food... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Buckeye, AZ Posts: 8,496	if you shoot a celebrity's pic, nude on a beach for example, you can sell it to magazines.. this happens all the time, and i dont think they ask those peoples permissions.. i would say it's legal, just my opinion tho ------------------ Best Free CJ script icq: 6757061

08-09-2001, 04:42 PM	#6
B40 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 7,020	Signing a model release form would be too much of a hassle for one pic. But, if you want to be on the safe side, then you should get her to sign it, and go through the whole process. ------------------ Cold Sex Partnership - Free Content - 60%

08-09-2001, 05:17 PM	#7
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	A lot of confusion exists in people's minds on this, but after working that particular niche now since 1995, I might can add something to this discussion. If you don't have a signed model's release, you have to be very careful what you do with the image. Civil law says you may not use another person's image for commercial purposes w/o their permission. But that doesn't say you can't make money selling it, it means you can't use their image to sell something. In other words, a person's picture can be used in a newspaper w/o a release even though the newspaper is making money from it's content, which includes the image. But if the image was used to sell a copy of the newspaper, then a release is required. (This does NOT apply to celebrities, btw! Any unauthorised use of their image can be considered commercial since they can show a professional interest in their likeness.) Also, the use of the image is restricted to truthful depictions. In other words, a model's release usually includes a clause that allows the publisher to present the photo in fictionalized settings and you don't have that option without it. So, one's approach has to be strictly journalistic with such images. And, you have to steer WAY clear of 18 USC 2257! That is to say, a site with these type of images on it can have NO XXX posed scenes mixed in with them. ABSOLUTELY NONE! Otherwise, you may be either found guilty of fictionalizing the indidual by implying they would or did such behavior themselves OR run the risk of being required to furnish the 2 copies of ID for that individual. A Mardi Gras flasher site, for example, shouldn't even have hardcore banners on it nor direct links to any XXX sites. Another consideration, which has grown in recent years, is privacy issues. If both you and the subject are on public property, your camera is in plain view and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at the moment, you're free to record the moment. Finally, I'm not a lawyer and nothing said here should be used as a substitute for a lawyer's advice. If you want to go this direction, get one that specializes in 1st Admendment law as it applies to news publications. He cannot only guide you along what is a very narrow path, but can help you get press credentials (a very good thing to have if you choose this route!).

08-09-2001, 05:53 PM	#9
TheMan Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 734	I saw a thing on tv and it was about the girls gone wild video. These guys go out and don't even tell all the girls what they are gonna do with the pics. So I would say it's legal. I don't think they are running around these places making every girl that flashes sign a paper. TheMan

08-09-2001, 06:00 PM	#10
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	pimplink, as I tried to stress in my posting, it is a pretty narrow path that has to be followed. And, afais, they strayed quite a ways from it! Oh, and I'd appreciate any links you have regarding that lawsuit too, I haven't been able to find any mention of this yet outside of the bbs. Also, as far as being incorporated, anyone who isn't behind at least an LLC in any aspect of the adult business is a fool...

08-09-2001, 06:27 PM	#11
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Hmmm..there are tons of sites with these kind of pics. What about the voyeurweb.com, the biggest voyeur site on the web. Not only do they have public nudity but also real voyeur stuff, toilets, showers you name it. And to put a cherry on top, they mix it (indirect) with porn sites (their other site Redclouds). They seem to get away with it. Im damn happy i live in holland and you dont get sued for a fart

08-09-2001, 07:40 PM	#12
dank Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 1,674	If you take the pictures in view of others in public on public property with or without any kind of permission.....it is legal. I know that both DreamGirls and GirlsGoneWild both use model releases when they get the model alone somewhere but they don't need it when shooting in public. However the one risk you take by shooting someone nude in public is if later it's proved that the person you took pics of was under 18. Then owning that pic could get you in trouble.

08-09-2001, 09:32 PM	#13
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	Our naked physiology is a mysteriously true manifestation of our soul -- in plain view for all to see what lies beneath... for the sheath lies not -- and the disease of neurosi breathes with ease through the bones and flesh and in pigment and in death -- each curve tells a story within a story and each protrusion an allusion to the man or woman apart from the space that lies between us... space sandwiched by oceans of sealed flesh posed fresh with each new day and swelled anew with each new sway of what our mouths have yet to dispell or could possibly know how to say. -- TheFLY FUCK YOU ALL! ------------------ ...from the nectar of the Bone flows all that clicks...

08-10-2001, 07:47 AM	#15
fiveyes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 1,680	--Pimplink Mmmmm, I could point out that their being turned down by a law firm says something on the subject in itself. Check this out - http://www.dnai.com/~pcombs/carwash.html . It gives a look inside how ambush reporting works, where the subject most definitely does NOT want their image used. Down at the end he says the same thing my lawyer tells me- if I'm told by the subject that I don't have permission to use their image, then I can't. But, this has to be said at that time, after the fact doesn't count. The case law that covers this is found under the concept of implied consent as it applies to the defined limits of personal privacy (when one leaves home and ventures into public places, a great deal of expectation along these lines is lost). Not to mention the rights of artistic expression and of the press. And don't laugh at that last part, those of us that "cover the uncovered" at special events are reporters in every sense of the word and our offerings fall squarely within alternative media. We're simply photojournalists that dare to go a bit further than most, documenting lewd and lascivious public behavior, and picking up the slack where the establishment either prefers to ignore certain behaviors or feels it is somehow restricted in covering it. Hey! It's a dirty job but someone has to do it...

08-10-2001, 03:09 PM	#16
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	"no reasonable expectation of privacy at the moment" ----------------------------- This is the critical phrase in the whole thing -- if you've got a group of girls flashing during Mardi Gras and there are plenty of people taking pics, they cannot expect to have any control over those pics and their actions in public obviously override the privacy consideration. A very good friend of mine's got some sites with this content on them, and he tells me that there really haven't been any cases that went far enough to set any specific precedent yet --

08-13-2001, 09:23 AM	#17
eRock Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chi-town Posts: 3,112	Alright, thanks everyone for the feedback! Considering this will take place in bars/nightclubs I think it'd be in my best interest to talk to a lawyer first. Thanks, E

08-13-2001, 09:33 AM	#19
eRock Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chi-town Posts: 3,112	Good point!!! Didn't think of that! That won't be a problem tho.

08-13-2001, 10:33 AM	#20
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Do NOT cloud the issue with thinking like a reporter for a print magazine dealing with celebs. A newspaper etc has rights that a site owner does NOT unless its just a news reporting site. Fair use law does NOT cover porn, flash or however you want to juxtapose what a site is. Betcha have to get a release and you better believe if you cannot prove who and how old someone in a pic is someone name A***roft will have an appointment for you eventually when its dealing with ANY form of sexual pose. That does include nudes in most areas if not all.

08-13-2001, 02:10 PM	#23
eRock Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chi-town Posts: 3,112	Not a bad idea! I'm considering any option at this point.