Do girls in renfaire clips know whats coming?

[jugner]

What a surprise....I thought they wouldn't be exactly thrilled being found on the net!

You were right. If I did something for fun, and saw a camera and asked about it, and was assured it was done by the administrators and the only copy would be given to me, if I was then put on the internet, specifically for the sexual gratification of other, I wouldn't like it at all. I have a tickling fetish, and even with no money involved at all, I would feel violated.

A model may regret being on the iternet after a few years, but they had a choice, these women feel completely safe in the environment their in, and then find themselves on the internet, forever, they had no choice.

 

[Master Baiter]

Sorry, but if they know it's being recorded ... all bets are off.

If you knowingly let someone record you and are only offered a copy, then that's the breaks.

Thanks Jugner, for putting the "tickled w/o consent and/or beyond limits" issue to rest, hopefully.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Steve57]

ok thanks

 

[jugner]

agree

Sorry, but if they know it's being recorded ... all bets are off.

If you knowingly let someone record you and are only offered a copy, then that's the breaks.

Thanks Jugner, for putting the "tickled w/o consent and/or beyond limits" issue to rest, hopefully.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I do see your point, don't 100% agree, but disagreeing happens.

But anyway, no problem, glad to help.

 

[rhiannon]

If you knowingly let someone record you and are only offered a copy, then that's the breaks.

Sorry, but that is straight out bullshit unless they were told upfront that their material was going to be distributed online, and even then they better had gotten a release for proof that the people were told! If it was right what you said, it would be perfectly alright for everybody to publish nude photos of their exes wherever they wanted, and I hope you know that is not the case.

You might want to read this:

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

 

[Master Baiter]

Sorry, but that is straight out bullshit unless they were told upfront that their material was going to be distributed online

This is, of course, another example of trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

The image belongs to the photographer, and he is free to use it how he chooses. Sorry, Charlie.

and even then they better had gotten a release for proof that the people were told!

A release isn't always a requirement. Example: I could take your picture and put it on my website. The burden of proof that it's damaging is now on you.
I call it public information. First Amendment. Study up on it Frau Rhiannon, before you proclaim yourself an expert.

If it was right what you said, it would be perfectly alright for everybody to publish nude photos of their exes wherever they wanted, and I hope you know that is not the case.

When did nudity come into this? You're reaching, desperately.

You might want to read this:

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

You might want to re-read that. I'm not going to quote the article ad nausea here, but those are suggestions and guidelines from the desk of a lawyer.

They are not laws.

The article admits First Amendment rights regarding photography and images are ambiguous at best.

Maybe you should do a little more research and start your own thread about the legality of publishing images instead of clogging up this thread with amateur legalspeak.

 

[Deadsea7777]

I jiust remembered, a couple of years ago, an administrator from renfair in caneli came on here and said he was getting angry calls from women who were on the internet. He said a few years back, there were complaints of inproper touching, so the stocks started being recorded. The women (and men) are told they are being recorded, and offered a copy, so they don't think anywthing of any camera, they assume it's administration.

Do they know they're:
getting tickled? Yes
being recorded? Yes
put on the internet? No, that's without consent

Do you mean on a tread, here on the TMF? if so could you post the link? It would be interesting to see what he/she thinks of the topic.

 

[rhiannon]

The image belongs to the photographer, and he is free to use it how he chooses.

I know for a fact that is not the case in Europe (where the Canelli material was produced), and I highly doubt it is that way in the US. I am still researching on it though.

When did nudity come into this?

Why would nudity make a difference? If you say the image belongs to the photographer and he is free to use it how he chooses, then why wouldn't that right apply if the photos he took were of someone who was nude?

If all you are saying is actually the truth, why do producers even bother having their models sign a release form? The material belongs to them, doesn't it?

 

[Master Baiter]

I know for a fact that is not the case in Europe (where the Canelli material was produced), and I highly doubt it is that way in the US. I am still researching on it though.

If you it "for a fact" then why do you need to research it?
Oh, I know, because it isn't a fact.

Why would nudity make a difference? If you say the image belongs to the photographer and he is free to use it how he chooses, then why wouldn't that right apply if the photos he took were of someone who was nude?

For one thing, we are talking about Renfaire images, where there is no nudity.
Again, you're reaching, and desperate, so you change the circumstances.

If all you are saying is actually the truth, why do producers even bother having their models sign a release form? The material belongs to them, doesn't it?

This is so off-topic it doesn't even deserve a response, but at the risk of hijacking, which you just love to do, I'll answer it for you.

They do it to protect themselves, not because they have to.
Producers are operating in a controlled studio environment with a clear understanding of what is going to happen to the material after the session.

The material still belongs to the producer and only the producer.
Clear enough?!

Now, care to answer my question about why you continue to clog this thread with a bunch of off-topic amateur legal ramblings?

 

[rhiannon]

If you it "for a fact" then why do you need to research it?

Please read correctly what I am writing! I know it for a fact in EUROPE. I do not know it for the US, and therefore I was researching for the US. And what I found out is that it is indeed not illegal as in you are committing a crime, but still if you do it you open yourself up for a lawsuit that the person who is published on the photos without consent will most likely win.

I admit I don't understand how something that you can be sued for is not illegal, but okay, I guess there is some legal explanation behind that.

For one thing, we are talking about Renfaire images, where there is no nudity.

We are talking about film material of people being published and/or sold without their consent. I don't see how it is important wether they are naked or not and whether it would make a difference to how the photographer owns the material or not if they are dressed vs. nude!

Again, you're reaching, and desperate, so you change the circumstances.

Nope. You seem desperate to make a valid point, so you are getting nervous when I point out how your points don't make sense!

They do it to protect themselves, not because they have to.

Well, if they do not have to, what do they protect themselves from?

The material still belongs to the producer and only the producer

Only if the model signed a model release form. If the model didn't, the material also belongs to the model!

Now, care to answer my question about why you continue to clog this thread with a bunch of off-topic amateur legal ramblings?

Because you bring up more and more that I feel like answering to. There is so much interesting discussion in this thread already that I feel a new thread would destroy the conversation. But I would be grateful if a mod could separate this part of thread and give it a new topic!

 

[jugner]

Do you mean on a tread, here on the TMF? if so could you post the link? It would be interesting to see what he/she thinks of the topic.

Yes I do. I would have posted it already, but the administrator removed it after an hour or two, ask them, maybe it's still around.

Here's what happened, the renfair people do record and offer it to the person, the recordings that showed up on the internet were taken by someone in the crowd. Some of the people asked about the camera, but were told not to worry, the worker's assumed it was administration. The women were angry to be on the internet, but just showing recordings from a public event isn't illegal, but he started a clips4sale site, making money off of them requires consent or it is illegal. The site was called Urban Videos, that's why the newer one are titled UV renfair.

 

[Deadsea7777]

Yes I do. I would have posted it already, but the administrator removed it after an hour or two, ask them, maybe it's still around.

Here's what happened, the renfair people do record and offer it to the person, the recordings that showed up on the internet were taken by someone in the crowd. Some of the people asked about the camera, but were told not to worry, the worker's assumed it was administration. The women were angry to be on the internet, but just showing recordings from a public event isn't illegal, but he started a clips4sale site, making money off of them requires consent or it is illegal. The site was called Urban Videos, that's why the newer one are titled UV renfair.

OK, thanks for the info.

 

[Master Baiter]

Only if the model signed a model release form. If the model didn't, the material also belongs to the model!

You are totally wrong. The image never belongs to the subject.
It's the property of the photographer.

You better go some more of that research you're famous for.

 

[rhiannon]

It seems to be really, really complicated...wherever I look on US sites, it always says "It depends". Law on this seems to be pretty fishy!

In Europe, it is different - you are not allowed to publish and distribute film or photo material of people without their consent. Period. It is illegal here. The Canelli stuff was produced in Europe. So what they do is illegal!

 

[jugner]

In the US, a video or pic can be put up by the person that took it if the person knew it was happening, can't post a pic you got while snooping, that isn't legal. Nudity or sex requires consent. Getting money for pics or vids also needs consent.

 

[Master Baiter]

It seems to be really, really complicated...wherever I look on US sites, it always says "It depends". Law on this seems to be pretty fishy!

In Europe, it is different - you are not allowed to publish and distribute film or photo material of people without their consent. Period. It is illegal here. The Canelli stuff was produced in Europe. So what they do is illegal!

Take 'em to court, Perry Mason!

 

[rhiannon]

You don't understand what this is actually all about, do you?

 

[Master Baiter]

Here's the title of the thread: Do girls in renfaire clips know whats coming?

That's what this is supposed to be about.

Not a fucking legal debate.

 

[Red faction]

Here's the title of the thread: Do girls in renfaire clips know whats coming?

That's what this is supposed to be about.

Not a fucking legal debate.

true my friend 🙂

 

[rhiannon]

Do girls in renfaire clips know whats coming?

They for sure don't know that what's coming is that their clips are being sold as fetish material!

 

[Em Es]

Twelve pages and counting on THIS topic?

I had not read any of this discussion until now, as I notice it's lasting longer than I would have imagined. Of course, it did not take long to realize why comments are running twelve pages strong: The self-appointed T.M.F. Morals Police are on the beat! I've known killjoys, but man, some folks here drag down the fun like a two-ton anchor.

Wouldn't it stand to reason if the women getting tickled at these festivals objected to the set-up, you'd see them demand to be released? I've tickled enough girls who did not like it and quickly let me know I'd better stop; do you see that in any of the YouTube clips posted in this discussion?

To the person who pointed out that European culture is simply much cooler than it is in the United States, I thank you and apologize for forgetting your name.

Getting back to those clips - thanks, Master_Baiter, for refreshing me as I have all three saved in my YouTube "Favorites" but have not viewed them in a while. In particular, that first one with the girl wearing the red top is very good. Until viewing it a few minutes ago I had not noticed her sexy, midriff-baring attire. Too bad that lovely gal's captors do not tickled her vulnerable upper body, but what the hell, with ticklish feet like hers I don't blame them for overlooking those defenseless ribs and underarms.

 

[Master Baiter]

They for sure don't know that what's coming is that their clips are being sold as fetish material!

But that isn't the topic.

You just don't get it, or just don't want to.

And Mr. Em Es, you are quite welcome, sir.

 

[Babbles]

Wrong. Period. It's all relevant -- Public, wider distribution

But that isn't the topic.

You just don't get it, or just don't want to.

And Mr. Em Es, you are quite welcome, sir.

She does get it --- You and yours obviously "don't want to"
since as you admitted you "don't want to" spoil your non-con fun by informing your victims --- And now it seems you got a more concrete answer --- Of COURSE there are women/victims who would NOT be happy about ANY of these surprises ----

ESPECIALLY IN A PUBLIC DISPLAY w/strangers --- Not a friendly exchange between friends or a couple ---- THEY SHOULD BE FULLY INFORMED --- TICKLING, TAPING, DISTRIBUTION.
NO-BRAINER. No "moral police," just BASIC DECENCY.

In your case/s ---- Such consideration is just INCONVENIENT. 🙄

And sure enough ---- It seems there were "complaints" ---- How many of these videos were from the time before they supposedly began giving safewords & informing the women of the taping ----??

You however, admitted you just don't give a crap about the victim's wants or needs, only your own ---

When you're touching someone in an unwelcome manner after immobilizing them ---- that's obviously wrong.

Taping it --- IF UNEXPECTED --- is a violation all over again, their privacy is shot, and now the tape is available world-wide at a click.

EVEN IF they allowed taping before the Internet --- and THIS GUY WAS STOPPED HOW MANY YEARS AGO??? --- THESE WOMEN DIDN'T SIGN A RELEASE much less for INTERNET usage, it probably wasn't around!!!

 

[primetime]

You know what is sad about this? The "Moral police" have turned this thread into a legal debate. My goodness, the thread was simply started to inquire if the "victims" in the renfaire clips know what is coming. In other words, do these women know they are going to be tickled? Simple as that. Yet, we have people screaming over consent forms and legalities. Did any of them ever think that the people involved felt it was just a good time? Did any of you stop and think that maybe other things besides tickling occurs in these stocks? We only see the tickle clips. I have a friend who used to work in renfaire type parks here in the United States and she told me about the other stuff that went on. Trust me, tickling seems like a welcome kind of torture.

How about this? How do we know these women are actually "unsuspecting"? Notice none of them are screaming bloody murder and demanding to be let out of their stocks. We all know if Rhiannon and Babbles were put into these stocks, they would be screaming to their top of their lungs "I will get my lawyer and sue all of your asses!!!". Could it be they are part of the "act"? How do we know these aren't "ringers" set up by the admin at the Renfaires to act out these tortures? Really, how do we know? We don't see a lot of lawsuits do we? Maybe because it was set up to begin with....

Yet we have people throwing hissy fits over legalities. Goodness people, you must realize that not everyone has a stick up their ass and enjoy a little fun and games. It could be no harm, no foul to them. You are ASSUMING they will want lawyers and such if they discover themselves on You Tube. Maybe they just don't have time to make sure they weren't on the internet. This is a big damn planet and people have other things to do than worry about being seen getting tickled.

 

[Master Baiter]

Primetime, you make so many great points I'm not going to bother quoting your entire post and I'm just going to say "You get it, Man".

The "Morality Police" consists of two stubborn, irrational women who can't be reasoned with (and one rational guy who actually can).

They have done everything in their power to derail this thread and try to keep coming up with new "crimes" that were committed.

Their rants are, in my opinion, off-topic and to be honest, boring. After all, no one likes to be lectured over and over about the same old shit. Who would?

What I see here are two TMF Nannies: one who considers herself an amateur legal expert, and the other, a first-rate wackjob who wants signs posted and warnings given. Both are off their rocker and should be out on a ledge somewhere. They are so blinded with conviction they just can't figure out why any other members haven't taken up their cause.

They refuse to admit this thread has nothing to do with morality and legality while trying to ram it down our collective throats.

That's my take on it.

Anyone else care to add anything to that?