Got a killer content deal - pics inside! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

zip · 08-23-2002, 08:13 AM

I don't get it...

This guy shoot some pics at a party and sells them as "content"?

I don't think the girls voluntary modelled here....

Dirty F · 08-23-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zip
I don't get it...

This guy shoot some pics at a party and sells them as "content"?

I don't think the girls voluntary modelled here....

Yawn

Juge · 08-23-2002, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by quiet
mmmmm - thongs.

Yummy.

UnseenWorld · 08-23-2002, 10:55 AM

As has been pointed out, you can be fucked even if you have a release. A release is itself imperfect protection and a model can go to court and ask to have the release set aside, and this has been done.

So, to sell photos of people, especially commercially, without releases is something you don't want to do, and I certainly would never buy content that hasn't been released.

There are times when a release is unnecessary, such as when covering news. However, to take photos and then to try to make a buck off them, I would think getting a release would be prudent, not only from the main subject of the shots, but from any identifiable people who happen to have been visible in the background or elsewhere in the shot.

If you don't have releases, I think you have a CD full of material you can watch at home but not do too much more with.

pr0 · 08-23-2002, 11:08 AM

Any resemblance?

tree · 08-23-2002, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pr0
Any resemblance?

the h0's down in h0ville

Stealthy · 08-23-2002, 02:50 PM

Yes but where's the "Ho Hash?"

BV · 08-23-2002, 04:49 PM

It is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places.
It is not illegal to charge money to view these pictures.
But this does not mean that you can not be sued in a civil court.
However time after time when these cases are brought to court the plaintiffs do not win. These are the comments from the Judge himself:
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during
Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which
they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out,
whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those
photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or
not it went nationally or locally or household to household."
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed,
Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the
French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras.
This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even
those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me
that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this
type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or
photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty
willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not
expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose
your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an
individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going
to be shown all over the place."
-- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a
little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of,
let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this,
prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will
be all over the country at some point, because people from all over
the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters."

That's right from the horses mouth!

So don't be a hater be a player.

Peace Out!
BV

UnseenWorld · 08-23-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
It is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places.
It is not illegal to charge money to view these pictures.
But this does not mean that you can not be sued in a civil court.
However time after time when these cases are brought to court the plaintiffs do not win. These are the comments from the Judge himself:
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during
Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which
they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out,
whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those
photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or
not it went nationally or locally or household to household."
-- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed,
Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the
French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras.
This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even
those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me
that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this
type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or
photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty
willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not
expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose
your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an
individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going
to be shown all over the place."
-- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a
little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of,
let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this,
prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will
be all over the country at some point, because people from all over
the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters."

That's right from the horses mouth!

So don't be a hater be a player.

Peace Out!
BV

I'm not attorney, but... This commentary seems mostly to be based on the right to privacy, and of course, you don't have privacy in a public place. However, there are other legal bases for a suit: strangely, the right of publicity is also a right under some circumstances, and if any of those people are not amateurs, and actually earn a living from their body and likeness, there's a possible lawsuit there, because the law recognizes the right of people in certain lines of work (mainly entertainment) to control the use of images of themselves, especially when someone else profits from those images. There is a famous case involving Dustin Hoffman where, I believe, a magazine put his face on a woman's (or transvestite's) body and he sued successfully.

So, the need for a release goes beyond the mere question of invasion of privacy. Beyond the right of publicity, if for example someone in the shot was simply passing by, and now their image is frozen in time with someone who is appearing nude or doing something naughty. They may have been unaware what was going on when the picture was taken, but now it appears they were a participant. Even if they're outright lying and were definitely participating, can you prove it? If not, here comes the defamation lawsuit!

You may get away without a release. You may never be sued. But if I were a webmaster, I'd thing twice or three times before spending money on unreleased images.

gothweb · 08-23-2002, 05:15 PM

You said that much better than I did. Thanks.

Kat - Fast · 08-23-2002, 05:20 PM

Battus - one day a big fat ass mofo is gonna spot you taking pics of his girls ass....

lol

Kinetik · 08-23-2002, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

There is a famous case involving Dustin Hoffman where, I believe, a magazine put his face on a woman's (or transvestite's) body and he sued successfully.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/471155
The 9th circuit reversed the judgement. Hoffman lost.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...56A80007C7F68/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement
actual ruling

Phil21 · 08-23-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

They may have been unaware what was going on when the picture was taken, but now it appears they were a participant. Even if they're outright lying and were definitely participating, can you prove it? If not, here comes the defamation lawsuit

Er... I don't think so. IANAL, but defamation is a REALLY HARD case to win. You have to have PROOF that the shit said about you has no merit, and it has to be decisively damaging to you. It cannot be implied, from what I know.

So I don't think defamation in the example you give is too much of a worry, but hell.. what the fuck do I know? ;)

-Phil

mrthumbs · 08-23-2002, 06:38 PM

Hahahahahaha.. this is a joke right?

Fucking pictures you can take anywhere at any party location,
no nudity, nothing special and you are able to SELL it as
ADULT CONTENT.

Congrats.. you are one hell of a salesman!!

Ok: let me try.

I have 5 sets containing 100 pics each.
I included an example below.

Buy now for $250 'cause im gonna raise that price
to $500 soon.

Hit me up if yar interested.

Rictor · 08-23-2002, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss
Ok, icq is gonna explode...everybody is asking things....everybody stay calm, im doing my best to help you all...

I hit you up on ICQ...I'll buy a set.

High Quality · 08-23-2002, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
As has been pointed out, you can be fucked even if you have a release. A release is itself imperfect protection and a model can go to court and ask to have the release set aside, and this has been done.

So, to sell photos of people, especially commercially, without releases is something you don't want to do, and I certainly would never buy content that hasn't been released.

There are times when a release is unnecessary, such as when covering news. However, to take photos and then to try to make a buck off them, I would think getting a release would be prudent, not only from the main subject of the shots, but from any identifiable people who happen to have been visible in the background or elsewhere in the shot.

If you don't have releases, I think you have a CD full of material you can watch at home but not do too much more with.

Oh please. Seriously, do you think a tv station or CNN et al do their news stories pro-bono? NOT...they are trying to make money, just as this fellow is doing. Release my ass. Those girls were in public, naked, or close to it. As long as all those girls are 18+ no court is going to strike this kind of shit down.

drunkdollars · 08-23-2002, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kinetik

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/471155
The 9th circuit reversed the judgement. Hoffman lost.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...56A80007C7F68/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement
actual ruling

There is a law in califonia and certain states that makes a "puplic figure" immune to public photos if his or her public image is damaged by the above pictures.

Fuckin cali fags protect everyone

UnseenWorld · 08-24-2002, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by High Quality

Oh please. Seriously, do you think a tv station or CNN et al do their news stories pro-bono? NOT...they are trying to make money, just as this fellow is doing. Release my ass. Those girls were in public, naked, or close to it. As long as all those girls are 18+ no court is going to strike this kind of shit down.

Of course all news organizations are in the business of making money, because without making money, no news organization, so I don't know where you think you're going with that. The fact that a news organization makes money doesn't change the fact that there is a certain exemption from getting releases in order to publish news. But publishing news is not the same business as publishing content.

Planet Bob · 08-24-2002, 01:42 AM

mrthumbs · 08-24-2002, 01:45 AM

just too funny.. hahahaha

Captain Canada · 08-24-2002, 01:56 AM

Girls Gone Wild have been sued many times regarding taking and using pictures and videos of people without their permission. Someone else said that they also had lawsuits involving people who signed waivers and later said they were drunk, I dont know about that, but the cases involving invasion of privacy have all been won by Girls Gone Wild.

One case in particular was a girl from Florida who was filmed and then used on the cover and on one of their commercials. She signed no release of any kind. She sued. The Girls Gone Wild company did not show up - they had a few different reasons but the basic reason was that they thought the Florida courts had no right to hear the case. Girls Gone Wild lost. The woman was awarded a 5 million dollar judgement. The judgement was probably issued in order to get Girls Gone Wild into court. This was in February - I believe this lawsuit was finally won by GGW.

In all other cases the individual women who sued lost based on the fact that they had no expectation of privacy at functions such as Mardi Gras or Spring break where there are thousands of cameras and video recorders.

I am writing this from memory so a few of the facts might be a little bit of but the results of these cases are all over the internet and at University BBS's.

Wether it is right or wrong to take and sell pictures of women who will not be getting any compensation or who did not give their permission for the pictures to be shown all over the internet is another matter - personally I think it sucks.

drunkdollars · 08-24-2002, 10:06 AM

Ok
One case in particular was a girl from Florida who was filmed and then used on the cover and on one of their commercials. She signed no release of any kind. She sued. The Girls Gone Wild company did not show up - they had a few different reasons but the basic reason was that they thought the Florida courts had no right to hear the case. Girls Gone Wild lost. The woman was awarded a 5 million dollar judgement. The judgement was probably issued in order to get Girls Gone Wild into court. This was in February - I believe this lawsuit was finally won by GGW.

Do an search on google if your interested..

BV · 08-24-2002, 11:04 AM

A few facts:

There are hundreds if not thousands of live web cams on the net streaming live images of people in public places. ie: Miami beach, Daytona beach, Key West, New Orleans, etc...... etc......

Some of these sites are often run by the city government.

Furthermore, these sites run ads so they are making money from it.

Nothing illegal about it.

You guys also have to remember that public flashing and nudity is not pornography thus sites containing such content are not "Porn" sites. This shit is all over TV for christ sakes! Wild on E MTV etc etc....

For those haters that dont like it, ask yourself this: Do you really think it would be fair if all the other people in the world (that were not in the "French Quarter" during Mardi Gras) not be able to view pictures of this PUBLIC EVENT? Do you want to live in a fish bowl and not see whats going on around you? Move to a communist state if that's what you want. It baffles me how narrow minded some people are and how they think this stuff is bad. it's real life, it's reality, it's our right.... and should be documented and made available for others.

Why wouldn't it be?

Peace
BV

Brad Mitchell · 08-24-2002, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by drunkdollars
This type of content is exempt from the requirements of 18 usc section 2257 because it contains no sexually explicit conduct, as defined in 18 usc section 2256

You are the expert so now I'll buy this stuff. Get me on ICQ for a sale Bat!

Brad

08-23-2002, 10:55 AM	#54
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	As has been pointed out, you can be fucked even if you have a release. A release is itself imperfect protection and a model can go to court and ask to have the release set aside, and this has been done. So, to sell photos of people, especially commercially, without releases is something you don't want to do, and I certainly would never buy content that hasn't been released. There are times when a release is unnecessary, such as when covering news. However, to take photos and then to try to make a buck off them, I would think getting a release would be prudent, not only from the main subject of the shots, but from any identifiable people who happen to have been visible in the background or elsewhere in the shot. If you don't have releases, I think you have a CD full of material you can watch at home but not do too much more with. __________________ 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.

08-23-2002, 11:08 AM	#55
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	Any resemblance? __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

08-23-2002, 02:50 PM	#57
Stealthy Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: You know that voice inside your head? That's me... Posts: 626	Yes but where's the "Ho Hash?" __________________ <embed src=http://www.moonshadow-productions.com/images/moon.swf width="120" height=60>

08-23-2002, 05:15 PM	#60
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	You said that much better than I did. Thanks. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.

08-24-2002, 10:06 AM	#72
drunkdollars Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Club Drunk Posts: 2,734	Ok One case in particular was a girl from Florida who was filmed and then used on the cover and on one of their commercials. She signed no release of any kind. She sued. The Girls Gone Wild company did not show up - they had a few different reasons but the basic reason was that they thought the Florida courts had no right to hear the case. Girls Gone Wild lost. The woman was awarded a 5 million dollar judgement. The judgement was probably issued in order to get Girls Gone Wild into court. This was in February - I believe this lawsuit was finally won by GGW. Do an search on google if your interested.. __________________ SIGS ARE GAY 98055668 icq

08-23-2002, 08:13 AM	#51
zip Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: under the bridge Posts: 567	I don't get it... This guy shoot some pics at a party and sells them as "content"? I don't think the girls voluntary modelled here....

08-23-2002, 04:49 PM	#58
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	It is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places. It is not illegal to charge money to view these pictures. But this does not mean that you can not be sued in a civil court. However time after time when these cases are brought to court the plaintiffs do not win. These are the comments from the Judge himself: -- Commenting on the women's knowledge that they were being filmed during Mardi Gras he said, "It is safe to gather that at the time in which they were in the French Quarter and there were cameras taken out, whether or not it was in the club or on Bourbon Street, that those photographs or tapes, videos would have been reproduced, whether or not it went nationally or locally or household to household." -- Commenting on the women's knowledge and consent to be filmed, Judge King said, "An individual, minor or not, that goes down into the French Quarter must be aware of what takes place during Mardi Gras. This is a well-publicized event that I think anyone local, and even those outside Louisiana, would know what to expect. It seems to me that there was consent. It appears that they were consenting to this type of behavior. They were consenting to the video and/or photographs that were taking place. It seems they were pretty willing. Certainly, as relates to a cause of action, they did not expect this to be a private matter. Because when you do it [expose your body] on Bourbon Street or in a club and you know there is an individual with a video, certainly you must expect that this is going to be shown all over the place." -- Commenting on the dismissal of the lawsuit Judge King said, "It is a little mind boggling to think that an individual over the age of, let's say 15, who goes on Bourbon Street and certainly sees this, prior to participating in it, doesn't realize that this [videos] will be all over the country at some point, because people from all over the world come to Mardi Gras and go in the French Quarters." That's right from the horses mouth! So don't be a hater be a player. Peace Out! BV

08-23-2002, 05:20 PM	#61
Kat - Fast Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The bushes behind your house Posts: 2,303	Battus - one day a big fat ass mofo is gonna spot you taking pics of his girls ass.... lol

08-23-2002, 06:38 PM	#64
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	Hahahahahaha.. this is a joke right? Fucking pictures you can take anywhere at any party location, no nudity, nothing special and you are able to SELL it as ADULT CONTENT. Congrats.. you are one hell of a salesman!! Ok: let me try. I have 5 sets containing 100 pics each. I included an example below. Buy now for $250 'cause im gonna raise that price to $500 soon. Hit me up if yar interested.

08-24-2002, 01:42 AM	#69
Planet Bob Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 303

08-24-2002, 01:45 AM	#70
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	just too funny.. hahahaha

08-24-2002, 01:56 AM	#71
Captain Canada Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 469	Girls Gone Wild have been sued many times regarding taking and using pictures and videos of people without their permission. Someone else said that they also had lawsuits involving people who signed waivers and later said they were drunk, I dont know about that, but the cases involving invasion of privacy have all been won by Girls Gone Wild. One case in particular was a girl from Florida who was filmed and then used on the cover and on one of their commercials. She signed no release of any kind. She sued. The Girls Gone Wild company did not show up - they had a few different reasons but the basic reason was that they thought the Florida courts had no right to hear the case. Girls Gone Wild lost. The woman was awarded a 5 million dollar judgement. The judgement was probably issued in order to get Girls Gone Wild into court. This was in February - I believe this lawsuit was finally won by GGW. In all other cases the individual women who sued lost based on the fact that they had no expectation of privacy at functions such as Mardi Gras or Spring break where there are thousands of cameras and video recorders. I am writing this from memory so a few of the facts might be a little bit of but the results of these cases are all over the internet and at University BBS's. Wether it is right or wrong to take and sell pictures of women who will not be getting any compensation or who did not give their permission for the pictures to be shown all over the internet is another matter - personally I think it sucks.

08-24-2002, 11:04 AM	#73
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	A few facts: There are hundreds if not thousands of live web cams on the net streaming live images of people in public places. ie: Miami beach, Daytona beach, Key West, New Orleans, etc...... etc...... Some of these sites are often run by the city government. Furthermore, these sites run ads so they are making money from it. Nothing illegal about it. You guys also have to remember that public flashing and nudity is not pornography thus sites containing such content are not "Porn" sites. This shit is all over TV for christ sakes! Wild on E MTV etc etc.... For those haters that dont like it, ask yourself this: Do you really think it would be fair if all the other people in the world (that were not in the "French Quarter" during Mardi Gras) not be able to view pictures of this PUBLIC EVENT? Do you want to live in a fish bowl and not see whats going on around you? Move to a communist state if that's what you want. It baffles me how narrow minded some people are and how they think this stuff is bad. it's real life, it's reality, it's our right.... and should be documented and made available for others. Why wouldn't it be? Peace BV