Realbaresoles Candid Soles Clips (updated continuously)

[jhop220]

How about this...

If you don't run the site...if your not taking a risk (assuming there is one)...then why do you care?

The man has contributed greatly with this thread and everything is on his shoulders. He is running a business. If any woman finds out or has an issue, then he will answer to that.

However, to come on here and simply be an ass is just plain idiotic. Let the man post his pics and run his business...if you have real concern then take it to the private messaging and keep this thread for his contributions and responses to those contributions.

 

[seanwoj]

How about this...

If you don't run the site...if your not taking a risk (assuming there is one)...then why do you care?

The man has contributed greatly with this thread and everything is on his shoulders. He is running a business. If any woman finds out or has an issue, then he will answer to that.

However, to come on here and simply be an ass is just plain idiotic. Let the man post his pics and run his business...if you have real concern then take it to the private messaging and keep this thread for his contributions and responses to those contributions.

How am I being an ass by asking what more than one person has asked him and not gotten an answer?

Do not call me an ass or anyone else here for asking a simple question.

 

[Tidas]

I'm done with your incessant BS and accusations.

Actually, you are finished, not done. If you were being cooked, you'd be done. Proper diction is important. You are derailing the thread. Stop it. Take your concerns to private messages, and cease your thread trolling. Thank you.

 

[realbaresoles]

Latest clip, click my banner below to go to my store. These soles, bottoms of the feet of a tall, sultry Italian-American Wife from Queens, Staten Island or Long Island, are, to me, PERFECTION in female feet. Big, shapely, soft and sexy. There's a whole saga to this shoot, all set out on the store page.

 

[realbaresoles]

Yes the women can sue you for using them on a porn site without their permission. Look up the terms of the copyright 2257.

Not even close. Here's 12 USC 2257:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

That's a record keeping requirement for material that depicts “sexually explicit conduct”.

What's sexually explicit conduct?

It's defined for us.

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated:
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Do you see publicly photographed feet anywhere in that list?

Look, you're kind of a dumb guy, so I'm going to be easy on you. You're out of your depth. You don't like what I do? Fine. The world is full of people who don't like what other people do. You can say so, it's a free country. But when you start claiming that it's illegal, I'll call you on it.

 

[SamuelKhan]

Latest clip, click my banner below to go to my store. These soles, bottoms of the feet of a tall, sultry Italian-American Wife from Queens, Staten Island or Long Island, are, to me, PERFECTION in female feet. Big, shapely, soft and sexy. There's a whole saga to this shoot, all set out on the store page.

Those are PERFECT. Bind and gag her, tie her big toes...make her squeal as my fingers lovingly caress those soles!

 

[tickleeforgals]

This thread is making me lol at the great lengths people take to justify their creepiness.

MUST PROTECT MASTURBATION FODDER AT ALL COSTS!!!

 

[seanwoj]

Not even close. Here's 12 USC 2257:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

That's a record keeping requirement for material that depicts “sexually explicit conduct”.

What's sexually explicit conduct?

It's defined for us.

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated:
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Do you see publicly photographed feet anywhere in that list?

Look, you're kind of a dumb guy, so I'm going to be easy on you. You're out of your depth. You don't like what I do? Fine. The world is full of people who don't like what other people do. You can say so, it's a free country. But when you start claiming that it's illegal, I'll call you on it.

I'm a dumb guy huh??? So explain to me that it also says you must have their permission to use their pics? And yet you clearly do not have their permission.

 

[realbaresoles]

I'm a dumb guy huh??? So explain to me that it also says you must have their permission to use their pics?

Yes, if the material contains any of the sexually explicit conduct that requires the paperwork in 12 USC 2257. Starting to understand now?

 

[realbaresoles]

Latest clip added to the store -- click the banner to go to the store. Yes, I know I'm RealbareSOLES, but sometimes a girl's foot tops are so gorgeous and alluring ... I shoot them anyway! To read more about this clip, which was shot on analog and has both beautiful soles and shapely tops, go to the store.

 

[seanwoj]

Yes, if the material contains any of the sexually explicit conduct that requires the paperwork in 12 USC 2257. Starting to understand now?

It doesn't matter. Even if its not sexual. You still have to have then sign a release form. Unless you wanna get sued.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Relax

Hey, Seanwoj, just chill out and take a step back. You should be able to see that the only things the people you are arguing with can come up with are cheap insults and accusations (Tidas’ comment about “done” vs. “finished” (Who cares, man… I know what you meant when you said “done” ). No, RBS, this username is an entirely different person. Can you not tell from the drastically different writing styles and personality? I’m over at the Mousepad but did not have an account here, so I had to make one.

Seanwoj, no problem backing you up, although, I’m not really trying to back anyone up. I’m just observing this thread as well as offering my own feelings when I can. I can see that you’re in a panic and that the people you’re arguing with are keeping you in a panic and it’s allowing them to pick on you. No, you’re not an “ass”. You are absolutely fine with asking your questions and pointing things out but it’s up to you how much longer you stick around and waste your time with these people.

I’m sure you read my entire post but maybe you should read the end again and take that into consideration. I don’t know if RBS read it. I guess either he read it and ignored it or didn’t read it at all. The only thing he could come up with in response to it was that Seanwoj made another account and wrote an entire set of “self-adoring text bricks”. And he never answered my question, either, which I think is a legitimate question. That’s two questions I know of that he hasn’t answered.

I just think this is a matter of what’s decent and indecent, not so much about legal or illegal. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s okay. Unless you are completely sure about the legal status of this issue and/or are an expert in law, I think it would be wise to just see the whole picture that RBS and his supporters are relying on the fact that something is legal just to get by, which should show you what kind of people they are. This is about being considerate of other human beings (meaning the women in his video clips) and how they might feel if they found out their image was being sold for sexual arousal purposes.

Regardless, feel free to explain to me or show me why what RBS is doing is illegal. He and others obviously don’t want to hear you out on this, but I’ll listen. Address your next post to me, or send me a PM.

And hey, RBS…nothing personal, man. There’s nothing wrong with you, it’s just what you’re doing that makes people, including myself, question and debate what you’re doing. I know how often you have to deal with “haters” and “trolls”. I see it here and over on the Mousepad. And you’ve become so fed up with it that you sometimes resort to harsh insults or completely avoiding those people altogether. It’s not your fault, it’s no one’s fault. It’s just an ongoing series of misunderstandings. To be fair, I’m sure Seanwoj is becoming a bit of a pain in your rear end. But I think you and a few other people are being hard on him, as well. He is raising a legitimate concern.

I’ll ask my question again. Of course you don’t have to answer it! Would you care if the women in your video clips got upset because they found out that their image was being sold on the internet?

 

[seanwoj]

Hey, Seanwoj, just chill out and take a step back. You should be able to see that the only things the people you are arguing with can come up with are cheap insults and accusations (Tidas’ comment about “done” vs. “finished” (Who cares, man… I know what you meant when you said “done” ). No, RBS, this username is an entirely different person. Can you not tell from the drastically different writing styles and personality? I’m over at the Mousepad but did not have an account here, so I had to make one.

Seanwoj, no problem backing you up, although, I’m not really trying to back anyone up. I’m just observing this thread as well as offering my own feelings when I can. I can see that you’re in a panic and that the people you’re arguing with are keeping you in a panic and it’s allowing them to pick on you. No, you’re not an “ass”. You are absolutely fine with asking your questions and pointing things out but it’s up to you how much longer you stick around and waste your time with these people.

I’m sure you read my entire post but maybe you should read the end again and take that into consideration. I don’t know if RBS read it. I guess either he read it and ignored it or didn’t read it at all. The only thing he could come up with in response to it was that Seanwoj made another account and wrote an entire set of “self-adoring text bricks”. And he never answered my question, either, which I think is a legitimate question. That’s two questions I know of that he hasn’t answered.

I just think this is a matter of what’s decent and indecent, not so much about legal or illegal. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s okay. Unless you are completely sure about the legal status of this issue and/or are an expert in law, I think it would be wise to just see the whole picture that RBS and his supporters are relying on the fact that something is legal just to get by, which should show you what kind of people they are. This is about being considerate of other human beings (meaning the women in his video clips) and how they might feel if they found out their image was being sold for sexual arousal purposes.

Regardless, feel free to explain to me or show me why what RBS is doing is illegal. He and others obviously don’t want to hear you out on this, but I’ll listen. Address your next post to me, or send me a PM.

And hey, RBS…nothing personal, man. There’s nothing wrong with you, it’s just what you’re doing that makes people, including myself, question and debate what you’re doing. I know how often you have to deal with “haters” and “trolls”. I see it here and over on the Mousepad. And you’ve become so fed up with it that you sometimes resort to harsh insults or completely avoiding those people altogether. It’s not your fault, it’s no one’s fault. It’s just an ongoing series of misunderstandings. To be fair, I’m sure Seanwoj is becoming a bit of a pain in your rear end. But I think you and a few other people are being hard on him, as well. He is raising a legitimate concern.

I’ll ask my question again. Of course you don’t have to answer it! Would you care if the women in your video clips got upset because they found out that their image was being sold on the internet?

Ok. Well first off, I'm not in a panic over this thread lol but thank you for your concern. Now as for those who I'm "arguing with" Lol, I could really not care what they say or call me, nor are they getting me all in a panic. I just want an answer to mine and yours question.

Now, as to the question of legality in this matter, yes. He is doing something illegal. He is taking pictures if women and their feet and selling them on the internet without their permission.

So again, RBS, would you care if those women got upset if they saw their pics on a porn site? And do you or do you not have their permission to do so?

 

[LB_Ticklingisfun]

This whole thing getting silly. Anyone can be sued over anything. Its just the question of will the jury/judge buy it. Just look at the woman that spilled coffee on her lap after buying it at McDonalds and sued "Because it was hot" and because McDonalds lost, not there is signs at every one saying "coffee is served very hot". Face it we live in a litigious world.

As far as Legal or Illegal, It really depends on what state the pictures are being taken. For example; in NY there is a Civil Rights law that states “A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor. “ which the court could determine that your pics that you post fall under that.

The other is a civil violation that 'could' be considered is the The rights of publicity and privacy. The gist of the privacy right is that you get to control information about you. At its heart is what Louis Brandeis (with coauthor Samuel Warren) summed up, way back in 1890 before he was a Supreme Court Justice, as "the right to be left alone." The right to privacy is invaded by:
■unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another (for example, photographing someone through the window of their house, unbeknownst to them); or
■appropriation of another’s name or likeness; or
■unreasonable publicity given to another’s private life; or
■publicity that unreasonably places another in a false light before the public.

And
The right of publicity

A person’s right of publicity is the right to protect his or her name or likeness from being commercially exploited without consent and, potentially, compensation. In one sense the right is treated like a property right (the right to profit from the use of one’s own image or identity). In another sense it’s treated like a privacy right (protection from unjustified intrusion and exploitation).

To avoid violating someone’s right of publicity you must be careful about using their:
■image (photos, videos, film);
■likeness (drawings, paintings, prints, etc.);
■name (this includes nicknames and former names);
■voice; or
■signature.

Example: A company films an instructional video of a man installing an acrylic bathtub liner and distributes the video to its customers. (The man agreed to be filmed for the video.) The company then hires a production company to make a TV commercial for them. The production company uses footage of the man in the commercial. He did not consent to that use of his image. The man sues both companies for unlawful appropriation and, depending on the state law applied, damages could be based on the infringers’ profits and/or emotional distress.

So as I said The rights of publicity and privacy are matters of state law

While copyright is a federally protected right under title 17 of the United States Code, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Publicity and privacy rights are the subject of state laws, and the laws vary from state to state.

While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others don’t recognize these rights, or they recognize them under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another.

That's why whenever you go to a theme park , For example, there are signs or printed on the ticket stating something to the effect of, By purchasing this ticket you are agreeing that your image may be captured and used for marketing purposes.

As far as it being porn, true it does not fall under the legal definition, however, with the clips being sold on Clips4sale where there is porn sold, the women could try to claim that it that it "unreasonably places another in a false light before the public"

So, if you did get consent then you are pretty much covered. If you didn't, well just be careful. Whether you did or didn't is your own choice. This thread just bugged me with it seeming to have more opinions and not supported with many facts.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

“At least I won’t be unoriginal.” -Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting

Hey, thanks Admiral for all the information. I should say, however, that there is nothing silly about expressing more opinions than facts. Often, opinions are what lead to changes in the world. It used to be the law that certain people had to sit at the back of a bus. Many people felt the entire situation was wrong, so they spoke up about it. Feeling that something is wrong is always an opinion. Of course, you can provide a “wrong” answer in mathematics, which is based on fact and logic, but I’m talking about moral right and wrong. Posting facts and laws from other sites may back up an argument or give someone the answer they need so they don’t have to keep asking questions but it doesn’t do much in terms of, “Hey, you know, I think this is wrong”. I’m not comparing that dark time in U.S. history to filming women in public without their permission; I’m just using it as an example. Seanwoj, myself, and anyone else who may have said anything regarding this matter are just expressing that we feel what RealBareSoles is doing is wrong. That fact that you copied and pasted a good portion of your post from another website and then wrote, “So, if you did get consent then you are pretty much covered. If you didn't, well just be careful. Whether you did or didn't is your own choice” shows such a bystander attitude regarding this issue about the dignity of other people. I actually care about the feelings of women who are being filmed without their knowledge and then having their image sold on a foot fetish video clips site.

 

[realbaresoles]

It doesn't matter. Even if its not sexual. You still have to have then sign a release form. Unless you wanna get sued.

Do you know how to read? If so, go back and read the whole law again.

 

[realbaresoles]

No, RBS, this username is an entirely different person. Can you not tell from the drastically different writing styles and personality?

Reading comprehension an issue with you too? Where did I say that you are a sockpuppet for seanwoj? You're definitely a sockpuppet, but for whom only you (and the board admins) know. What is clear is that you are too gutless to use your own TMF handle to troll this thread, hardly surprising.

 

[realbaresoles]

Admiral, trying to quote you to get a clearer response, but for some reason I get an error whenever I click on Reply with Quote, so I'll just summarize.

You're right that this is governed by State law. There are two relevant state laws in NY, the civil rights law you cited, and a penal law prohibiting unlawful surveillance, which you missed.

The civil rights law has already been litigated and went all the way up to the NY Court of Appeals, as a photographer took a photo of an orthodox Jew in a public place and sold it without his consent. The court held that the photographer could sell the photos under the First Amendment. Could a person sue me similarly? Yes, but I would not want to be the litigant who made a claim under the same law after the highest court in the state found it a constitutionally protected activity.

The other law is the penal law's protection against unlawful surveillance. This protects against two things:

a) being photographed with a secret camera in a place like a bathroom, dressing room or hotel room
b) having your private parts photographed in public (upskirt, etc)

Neither situation applies to my shooting, which is not done in a place where people have an expectation of privacy, and does not involve photography of the private parts of the subject.

Not sure what you mean by "it could be porn because it's sold on c4s." Porn is a legally meaningless term. Sexual conduct is what is relevant legally, and that is defined under both federal and state law.

This is one of the most famous photographs in all history:

It was taken in a public place of two individuals. The photograher sold it to Life Magazine, and over the years it has sold millions of dollars of magazines and products for Time/Life. The people in the photo did not consent to the photograph or the sale or commercial exploitation of it. The First Amendment protects the use of this photo for those purposes.

You seem to understand the issues, so that puts you in a much better position than someone like seanwoj, who reads a law that says "if you are making sexually explicit material you must keep records of the model" and says "hurr durr, you have to keep records even if there is no sexually explicit conduct."

I have to deal with thread trolls on other forums as well. Apparently the guy who signed up here just to concern-troll the thread is from the mousepad, where there were some trolls on my threads as well, but they have been dealt with on the pad so it looks like they are migrating over here. Might make reading the thread a little harder for the rest of you, but TBH it's a benefit to me, especially on active forums where the latest update pushes the thread to the top of the page. There's no such thing as bad publicity. 🙂

 

[realbaresoles]

Latest clip, click my banner to go to the store. I love an office worker who is fully dressed and at the same time baring her soft, pretty soles! More about the shoot on the store.

 

[seanwoj]

Do you know how to read? If so, go back and read the whole law again.

Listen, I know you like to be disrespectful, and insult people here, so I'm just gonna say it. No matter what state you are in, you have to have permission by the people. Plain and simple.

And in regards to calling.largerworld gutless,YOU are the one who is gutless, attacking those who haven't anything else to say except what they feel. You're just another guy who gives the fetish community a bad name by taking random people's pics and posting them on a porn site for personal gain.

So please stop being a jerk and stop trying to rationalize what is clearly wrong and immoral here.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Thanks Seanwoj! I got this, though.

Hey, RBS. Not trolling at all, just expressing my feelings. I went back and read what you wrote again shortly after you wrote it, and I did realize that you were not accusing Seanwoj of “sockpuppeting”. Sometimes things can be misunderstood. We’re all human, we all make mistakes or don’t notice things at first. Don’t be so hard on people, man. Reading comprehension issues? Coming from the man who said that the text bricks I wrote were self-adoring? If you did read them, you would clearly see that all I was doing was defending Seanwoj and pointing some things out about what you do. I’m not self-adoring at all. I’m humble and polite whether on the internet or in real life. I don’t need to use the anonymity of the internet to feel tough, to pick on people, especially trivial things like grammar, the way they spell their usernames, to call other people dumb, etc. I’m content in the way I discuss with other people online. Is that what satisfies you, being rude to people on the internet? And the fact that some people consider what you do is a “business”, well, how you act on the internet is not how “businessman” should treat the public. You say it’s “good to be bad”? No, most people can come onto a forum like this or any forum on the internet and be decent and friendly.

Now, I want you to know that I used to watch your content with great interest. In fact, I even went out there and tried similar things you and others have done. Therefore, I’m not at all coming from a place of judgment but rather one of understanding. But that’s the past. I realized it was wrong, and I’ve changed. That’s all I’m going to say about that. I see you still sell clips online. I guess you obviously don’t care about these women. You just sell their image in the form of video clips online like they were trading cards or some sort of product, not to mention they don’t even know that it’s happening, and you feel justified only because it’s legal? Also, someone who tapes strangers secretly has said that I am gutless? I dunno, man…

 

[milagros317]

Latest clip, click my banner to go to the store. I love an office worker who is fully dressed and at the same time baring her soft, pretty soles! More about the shoot on the store.

Wonderful sole shots. Thanks for posting them here. 😀

PS: Ignore what the self-appointed guardians of public morals are saying to you here. In other words, keep on posting.

 

[seanwoj]

Wonderful sole shots. Thanks for posting them here. 😀

PS: Ignore what the self-appointed guardians of public morals are saying to you here. In other words, keep on posting.

I'm self appointed? Wow.

I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to voice my opinion around here. Didnt know that qualified me as a self appointed moral guardian.

 

[Slytickler]

Everyone has different tastes and this style of video, offensive to some, is just some peoples tastes. If you completely dislike what realbaresoles does then make sure you never look at a woman's feet in public because essentially that is what these clips are less the extreme obviousness of clearly staring at a woman for 10 to 20 minutes. This side discussion is similar to people who comment on a larger woman that posts a video of herself being tickled and just tell her how ugly she is. Free speech is a right but all voices do not need to be heard all the time. My 2 cents.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

“Free speech is a right but all voices do not need to be heard all the time”? Sounds like “free speech unless it disagrees with you”. This isn’t the same as simply looking at a woman’s feet (or her face for that matter) in public. That is a weak argument because eyeballs do not record people’s faces or feet. The reason videotaping strangers in public is such a big deal to me is because of the potential distress it could cause to the people being videotaped. Nevertheless, I’m no law expert, and unfortunately for my side of the argument, RBS still seems to be completely legally justified in what he does. I can and will only argue on the basis of what I feel is wrong, regardless of what the law says. Also, this is not the same as going to a thread just to look at the content and then insulting it just to be obnoxious and disruptive. This is the equivalent of protesting, and peacefully protesting I should add. Like I’ve said, opinions are very important, and while I don’t have any legal knowledge to back up what I’m saying, that’s all I’m doing is protesting. I really can’t believe that anyone with respect and consideration for other human beings would think secretly videotaping strangers to sell the material for sexual arousal purposes is okay, regardless of how legal it may be. Call me a “self-appointed guardian of public morals”, but I would think a lot of people, especially the women in the videos should they find out, would not think this is okay. If people have a problem with my attitude, if you think I’m somehow high and mighty, maybe even self-righteous and condescending, well at least I’m honest. If my “self-appointment” to being a guardian of public morals is so wrong, then maybe your moral stance is better. Therefore, just say that you think what RBS is doing is okay. Say outright that it’s not immoral and that you think there is nothing wrong with it.