• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Realbaresoles Candid Soles Clips (updated continuously)

realbaresoles said:
Is this your legal opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Don't get me wrong I'm not judging you or offering an opinion on whether or not you're crossing some moral boundary. I couldn't care less what you do with your time. I'm simply saying that when you film somebody for the purpose of selling their likeness for profit without a signed release you would probably lose in a court of law if somebody found out what you were doing and filed suit. That's why most clip makers get signed releases from their fetish models.
 
You would think, since he's filmed numerous girls over the years, that at the very least, one of them would or could have went to the authorities.

Could they even prove that he was filming their feet, and not something else?
 
izodman2000 said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...

Oh so you're a lawyer, offering legal advice on the internet to strangers who could sue you if it turns out they rely on it to their detriment?

So I'm guessing you're either not a lawyer, or you are a bad one. 😉
 
Latest clip, my store is:
http://clips4sale.com/40361

This girl had raven hair, which I love, and the sweetest and most innocent little face! Her poor tender tootsies -- long, slender, smooth and highly arched -- were evidently aching from a day's walking in high-heeled strappy mules and she was resting them in the park for a while, and the redness of the tender bottoms of her bare feet was apparent! (I got there moments after she put her feet up -- nothing else was doing and I didn't want to miss a second!)

When I first sat down to shoot was was taking selfies and that's where the clip starts. I was a little too eager to get every second and a tourist noticed I was shooting and went over and told her, standing between me and the girl. (I edited that part out.) I got ready to deal with the situation but I heard her laugh and saw her wave her hands around and the guy just looked at me and then walked off. She laughed again and took out her earbuds. (There was a Shakespeare performance in the park and I think she wanted to tune it out, and frankly I can't blame her.) So since her feet were VERY MUCH still on display, and she had basically disregarded the guy, I thought I'd go back to shooting.

So I did ... for a half hour!

Way too much material to put on a clip, and believe me it was hard to trim it down, but I think I have chosen the most adorable moments. She obviously liked the music she was listening to as her feet were very happy and dancing around. She often looked at the camera with her quirky little smile and even seemed to be sure to keep them pointed at me. I love her sweet little face and big innocent eyes. I think she is a New Yorker, as she had the vibe of someone who had just got out of work, and was killing time to go off and meet someone. Her poor tender soles got less and less pink as she rested them -- I was almost tempted to get an ice cube from somewhere and ask her if she'd like me to run it along her soft pink soles to cool them off. Her beautiful shapely smooth soles were so frisky! There was lots of wriggling around, dancing, and even a little rubbing.

I actually ran out of internal space and had to switch over to the memory card and she sat there looking at me quizzically as I urgently switched over, but then I raised the camera lens again and she went back to dancing her bare feet all around. She's all SORTS of adorable and so are her bare soles!


 
izodman2000 said:
Yes it is. Don't get me wrong I'm not judging you or offering an opinion on whether or not you're crossing some moral boundary. I couldn't care less what you do with your time. I'm simply saying that when you film somebody for the purpose of selling their likeness for profit without a signed release you would probably lose in a court of law if somebody found out what you were doing and filed suit. That's why most clip makers get signed releases from their fetish models.
Click to expand...

*That's generally correct except a fetish model is there to make money with the knowledge that the model's likeness will be sold. These are people in public so recording is usually considered ok.

*The profit angle and fap videos is more on point, but this is also a much smaller niche "narrowcasting" market than anything a television network with sponsors would offer to the larger public & I imagine that could make a good argument in court.

*About court. The OP can repeatedly demonstrate that the women knew they were being recorded since he can document that many women in his videos year after year had seen him with his camera and would peer at it while he recorded. The large majority of them did not confront him, work a financial deal with him, or even put their feet down when they discovered what he was doing, so there is some sense of implied consent to his activity.

*But the upskirt case in Washington - where the recorder intended to sell his clips made in public - was found not guilty of any wrongdoing since he only filmed women who were accidently displaying their "upskrt" in public; any eyes could see the same thing the recorder saw. And these aren't even upskirt shots; they are just feet on full no-shame display, propped up on tables and chairs that are going to be used for sitting or eating by the rest of the public. So there has already been precedent for a recorder shooting a fetish video in public for profit (and the court found in his favor).
 
realbaresoles said:
Latest clip, my store is:
http://clips4sale.com/40361

This girl had raven hair, which I love, and the sweetest and most innocent little face! Her poor tender tootsies -- long, slender, smooth and highly arched -- were evidently aching from a day's walking in high-heeled strappy mules and she was resting them in the park for a while, and the redness of the tender bottoms of her bare feet was apparent! (I got there moments after she put her feet up -- nothing else was doing and I didn't want to miss a second!)

When I first sat down to shoot was was taking selfies and that's where the clip starts. I was a little too eager to get every second and a tourist noticed I was shooting and went over and told her, standing between me and the girl. (I edited that part out.) I got ready to deal with the situation but I heard her laugh and saw her wave her hands around and the guy just looked at me and then walked off. She laughed again and took out her earbuds. (There was a Shakespeare performance in the park and I think she wanted to tune it out, and frankly I can't blame her.) So since her feet were VERY MUCH still on display, and she had basically disregarded the guy, I thought I'd go back to shooting.

So I did ... for a half hour!

Way too much material to put on a clip, and believe me it was hard to trim it down, but I think I have chosen the most adorable moments. She obviously liked the music she was listening to as her feet were very happy and dancing around. She often looked at the camera with her quirky little smile and even seemed to be sure to keep them pointed at me. I love her sweet little face and big innocent eyes. I think she is a New Yorker, as she had the vibe of someone who had just got out of work, and was killing time to go off and meet someone. Her poor tender soles got less and less pink as she rested them -- I was almost tempted to get an ice cube from somewhere and ask her if she'd like me to run it along her soft pink soles to cool them off. Her beautiful shapely smooth soles were so frisky! There was lots of wriggling around, dancing, and even a little rubbing.

I actually ran out of internal space and had to switch over to the memory card and she sat there looking at me quizzically as I urgently switched over, but then I raised the camera lens again and she went back to dancing her bare feet all around. She's all SORTS of adorable and so are her bare soles!


Click to expand...


Great sole shots! :feets: Thanks for sharing them here. 😀
 
Oddjob0226 said:
*That's generally correct except a fetish model is there to make money with the knowledge that the model's likeness will be sold. These are people in public so recording is usually considered ok.

*The profit angle and fap videos is more on point, but this is also a much smaller niche "narrowcasting" market than anything a television network with sponsors would offer to the larger public & I imagine that could make a good argument in court.

*About court. The OP can repeatedly demonstrate that the women knew they were being recorded since he can document that many women in his videos year after year had seen him with his camera and would peer at it while he recorded. The large majority of them did not confront him, work a financial deal with him, or even put their feet down when they discovered what he was doing, so there is some sense of implied consent to his activity.

*But the upskirt case in Washington - where the recorder intended to sell his clips made in public - was found not guilty of any wrongdoing since he only filmed women who were accidently displaying their "upskrt" in public; any eyes could see the same thing the recorder saw. And these aren't even upskirt shots; they are just feet on full no-shame display, propped up on tables and chairs that are going to be used for sitting or eating by the rest of the public. So there has already been precedent for a recorder shooting a fetish video in public for profit (and the court found in his favor).
Click to expand...

Yes, but the upskirt case in Washington involved a criminal charge of voyeurism, not a civil case of selling images of recognizable people for profit without their consent. Nowhere, in the Washington case did the court address the defendant's alleged intentions to sell the photos in question. It only addressed the defendant's right to take photos without extraordinary means in public places where people have no reasonable right to privacy. It's two different questions. Yes, RBS could probably demonstrate that most of the people he films were aware that they were being filmed, but as the Washington case demonstrated, he wouldn't need to do that. On the other hand, he most likely couldn't demonstrate that the women in his films consented to the sale of their images, for any purpose, just because they knew they were being filmed in public. Like I said, I don't care whether he does this or not. There's plenty of worse things going on in the world than someone selling images of clothed women exposing their feet on the internet. But the question was raised on whether it was illegal or not by someone else and I offered an opinion, not a moral judgement. I appreciated the reasonable conversation on your part Unfortunately, a lot of people on this forum go into attack mode whenever they think someone is trying to knock their dick out of their hands.
 
realbaresoles said:
Oh so you're a lawyer, offering legal advice on the internet to strangers who could sue you if it turns out they rely on it to their detriment?

So I'm guessing you're either not a lawyer, or you are a bad one. 😉
Click to expand...

It wasn't my legal advice, It was my legal opinion. You're not my client and I'm not offering you advice. I was responding to a question posed by someone else as to whether or not what you do (selling the video's that you take for profit without signed consent) is technically legal. As I said before, I don't care what you do. I view the pics here just like everyone else. But if you're so sure you're on solid legal ground, why don't you give the women you film your name and business card and direct them to the website where they can find the videos that they "starred in" for sale and see how quickly somebody files suit against you.
 
If you think about it, nearly everybody on here who captures pics or videos of unsuspecting women is "guilty" of illegal acts..
 
COOLCAT88 said:
If you think about it, nearly everybody on here who captures pics or videos of unsuspecting women is "guilty" of illegal acts..
Click to expand...

Not really, it only crosses the legal line (again in my opinion) if their recognizable likeness is used for profit without their consent.
 
izodman2000 said:
It wasn't my legal advice, It was my legal opinion. You're not my client and I'm not offering you advice. I was responding to a question posed by someone else as to whether or not what you do (selling the video's that you take for profit without signed consent) is technically legal.
Click to expand...

Actually you've just undermined your own argument. Read the ABA rules, opinion 10-457. II B. specifically.
 
realbaresoles said:
Care to back that up?
Click to expand...
Your failure to provide the women you film with any information about what you are doing with the videos is proof enough that you don't really believe what you do would pass legal muster if it were examined in a court of law. Some of them may think it's harmless enough because they assume that you're just some loser who plans to jerk off in your parent's basement later. But I'd wager that they probably wouldn't be as indulgent if they knew you were selling those videos on the internet.
 
realbaresoles said:
Actually you've just undermined your own argument. Read the ABA rules, opinion 10-457. II B. specifically.
Click to expand...
As that opinion states, "context" and "content" are everything. But feel free to hire your own lawyer and sue me for all damages you've sustained resulting from my "legal advice."
 
Here's the relevant information to your questions provided by the American Society of Media Photographers.

Q: How do I know when I need a model release?
A: The answer to this question can be reached by asking a series of questions about the subject and the use of the photograph. A model release is needed from each person whose likeness appears in a photograph that is used for advertising or trade (business) purposes when the person is identifiable. Look at the photograph and the person(s) in it and ask these questions:

Could the person in the photograph be recognized by anyone? Be warned: It is very easy for a person to show in court that he or she is recognizable.

If the answer to question #1 is No, then you do not need a release.

Is the photograph to be used for an advertisement? (In law, “advertisement” is broadly defined.)

Is the photograph going to be used for commercial business purposes, like a brochure, calendar, poster, web site or other use that is intended to enhance a business interest?

If the answers to question #2 and question #3 are both No, then you do not need a release.

Otherwise, the answer is that you do need a model release.


Q: What is the legal age for signing releases?
A: Eighteen is generally legal age across the USA. However, it is an individual state determination, and we do not have the legal stats on each state. If you want to know the answer for any state, we suggest that you call the state attorney general, state solicitor’s office, or whatever your state calls its legal arm. You can also call local attorneys, as they could not pass the bar exam in their state without knowing the answer to that question.

A safe course is to use ASMP’s recommended release forms. You are well protected because we use the words “of full age,” which covers you in any state. (“Full age” and “legal age” mean the same thing in legal jargon. “Full” allows you to keep the word “legal” off the paper. Some folks fear the word legal when they see it on paper.)

When the subject is not of legal age, you must get the signature of at least one parent or legal guardian on the release. Getting the signatures of both parents is better, so that one can not seek to rescind the consent of the other.


Q: What are the differences between having a photograph appear in an ad and in a magazine’s editorial pages?
A: The two differences are the need for model releases (see an earlier answer) and money. Generally, photographs used for advertising are worth substantially more money to everyone involved than photographs used for editorial purposes.


Q: If I photograph a large group of people and plan to sell the picture, would I need model releases from every person?
A: If you just want to sell fine art prints, or even posters, you should be OK without releases. If you license the picture for use in a book, you should be OK without any releases as long as you don’t allow the publisher to put the photo on the cover of the book or use it in promotional materials.

But if you put it on coffee mugs or allow its use in any way that would be considered purposes of trade (commercial transaction) or advertising, you are probably going to be liable for the invasion someone’s right of privacy unless you have gotten releases from every person who is recognizable in the photo. A bank once made a photo of about 300 of its own employees standing in one of its lobbies. When the picture ran in an ad campaign, some of the employees sued the bank, and won.

Copyrights and rights of privacy for people are different rights. When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not invade their privacy. This happens when someone enters a person’s private domain in a manner that would be considered offensive to the average person. As a photographer, the act of going on someone’s land without permission would be trespassing and also may violate the person’s right of privacy. You don’t have to take a photo or publish an image photo for the action to be unlawful. Some courts have found that a photographer has violated privacy rights even when photographing someone in public. Instances would include cases where the photographers harass their subjects, use hidden cameras, or wait for a woman’s skirt to be blown at a fun house. It also is unlawful to view and photograph people inside of residences or other places where privacy is normally expected, even when the photographer is standing in public.

After the photo is taken, however, the photographer should be concerned with the person’s right of publicity. You violate a person’s right of publicity when, without permission, you use a photo of a person for your own benefit. The “editorial” use of a photo is not considered a use of the person’s image for your own benefit. “Commercial” use is different because the use benefits the photographer, so you need the person’s consent to use their image. If you get a model release signed by the subject, you are free to use the image commercially, i.e., for advertising.

if you’re not seeking to sell the work commercially (defined not as simply selling your artwork at a gallery but rather as large scale distribution like commercial products not defined as art) or it’s for news purposes, there’s no reason to seek a permission/waiver from your subject, because you already have it if you are in a public place that you have authority and permission to be in. See Hoepker v. Kruger (2002); Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (2007).
 
Last edited:
Wow, a bunch of bs artists w way too much free time. As if the barely 18 year old girl with no long term vision or guidance taking a photo shoot for poorly thought consequences and short term pennies to pay for bills or drugs is ok to pull your prick at opposed to this.. You are a bunch of self righteous, pathetic hypocrites, the same handful of you doing this time and again. Why do you frequent this board so often ?
 
peterprince said:
Wow, a bunch of bs artists w way too much free time. As if the barely 18 year old girl with no long term vision or guidance taking a photo shoot for poorly tho You are a bunch of self righteous, pathetic hypocrites, the same handful of you doing this time and again. Why do you frequent this board so often ?
Click to expand...

Where? I've cited an actual case in Washington, which is neither self-righteous or hypocritical. It's law.

As far as "consequences" those are the things doled out by people like you. I'm perfectly happy with people who do something sexy or fetishy also living perfectly normal lives they way they want to live them.

Why do we come here? Because the forums about speedboat racing or Hummel collecting don't have threads like this.

If there is a post that you find questionable you can always click the red exclamation point icon to alert a moderator. You might start with ALL the unlicensed mainstream clips and images that violate copyright guidelines or laws regarding a celebrity's right to the use of their own image - especially when those images pop up on an over-18 fetish site that requests financial donations to keep going.
 
Latest clip, my store is:
http://clips4sale.com/40361

You guys probably know that I'm very concerned about shooting vid of a girl in a dress. From where I sit when I shoot, it could very possibly appear to her that I'm trying to "upskirt" her, which of course I'm not doing. But ... she doesn't know that! But all the same, as you may also know, I have more than a few clips of girls in skirts (although you can never see "anything" if you know what I mean). Contradiction? No, because I will ALWAYS break my rule if the soles are beautiful enough! The animal part of my brain takes over, and I go get what I want, "damn the torpedoes."

This clip is a beautiful example of that. Lawn is closed a lot and even when it opens, shoe fashions are very cozy and very hard to remove (lots of straps), so there's not much going on these days. So every time a girl puts her feet up on a chair it's a big deal. Not that I shoot them all, because I still ask myself, "would you watch and enjoy that yourself?" If the answer is no, I don't shoot. Well, I saw this girl, a very long, leggy, languid blonde who was wearing a little black dress, her black pumps, number 41 on the soles, discarded on the grass below her. Holy fucking shit! In a dress, yes I know but I'm rushing over there to sit and shoot! There was a convenient place to shoot so I settled in. As her soles came into view I saw they were soft, mostly smooth, although gentle wrinkles flowed across her arch when she flexed her feet, as she often did, beautifully shaped, very long, and obviously pleasantly sensitive because she was rubbing them gently together, enjoying the pleasurable feeling on her tender feet. She has an air of an adventurous WASP about her -- hair up, sexy choker on, but still looking every inch (all seventy of them) the patrician. I'll bet she was working or interning in one of the big financial institutions in the area, but relaxing in the park and resting her big tender feet from the ouchy confines of those large black high heels. I can just imagine her padding around on the deck of a sailboat her family owns, her big bare soles gripping the varnished deck.

Seeing those big shapely soles, with her beautiful face behind them, was a HUGE rush and VERY sexually exciting. I had a platform to rest the camera on, that's for sure! LOL She peeked down at the camera occasionally -- she must have seen me take the camera out and point it at her, but I didn't see that. She looked but it was like nothing at all was happening, she took it so much in stride. I think the regal WASP does not really care about what the lesser mortals are doing, even admiring her royal beauty. LOL, just a joke, I have no idea what her attitudes are about anything. But I then proceeded to capture about seventeen minutes of her big long tender bare soles as she rubbed them together, occasionally rocked out to whatever she was listening to, and looked at the guy at her feet occasionally.

For the first four minutes or so, there was so shadowing because of the sun, but then a fortunate cloud bank rolled in and I was able to get another thirteen minutes of absolutely pristine naked sole footage -- that's the footage I included in the clip. It's footage to be enjoyed over and over. I'm tempted to tickle the monitor when I watch this! Some of you may be tempted to lick or sniff it ... anyways at 1:50 she put her feet down and slipped them back into those big leather pumps and off she went.

Funny thing is, in the background for most of the clip was a very attractive middle-aged woman, who was pretty clearly on to my reindeer game right from the start. She was with a tweenaged girl and I think (but I'm not sure) that they were both watching me and joking about the shooting. I know the adult woman was. (The video slides over to the left a little, later in the clip, to keep the girl's face out of the vid.) I'll tell you -- I would absolutely NOT mind if that MILFy lady ever had HER bare feet up in the park!!!




 
Latest clip -- my store is:
http://clips4sale.com/40361

This is two different clips in one! It is a study in contrasts. Two very different Indian wives with two very different sets of feets!

The first one was shot a month or so ago, late in the afternoon to early evening with a curvaceous, outgoing, vivacious wife sitting with her feet up on her husband's legs, big curvy soles out to the world. I sat in a chair a few feet away as she flexed and wriggled her pretty feet around and joked with him.

The second clip is about two years old and features a demure, softspoken, who seemed to be a serious professional, sitting with her husband -- her cute feet were small, soft-looking, and irresistible as she wiggled them around, occasionally rubbing the toes of one foot along the sole of the other foot.

Both of them seemed to be women of good humor -- belly laughs with the first, sly wit with the second -- and each is terrific in her own way! The first clip, about four and a half minutes long, is a bit narrower than the second because I edited out the husband. It gets a little dark toward the end because it was dusk but you can still see pretty well! Both women were pretty good at not looking too much at the camera but I got the sense they knew what I was up to -- actually the husband and wife in the first clip are discussing something at the beginning, and it MIGHT be my shooting (but I'm not sure).

I had more preview images but the fucking imagevenue image uploader has been down all day as usual. Here are two for now.

8c0f2011fb6e43bba67a4bc915ee2a06_r.jpg


78340d173044490ab86d80e568ce87bb_r.jpg
 
this guy clearly doesnt care whos image he ruins and I doubt he has releases for any of them. I hope one if the girls busts him or I just might contact nypd or bryant park management myself to put them on notice. Plenty of incriminating evidence in these threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New

1/11/2025
Stop by the TMF Welcome forum and take a moment to introduce yourself!
Door 44
Tickle Experiment
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top