Can You Market Video Without A Model Release?

[Fletch XXX]

Did Paris Hilton sign one?

:stout:

[Mike AI]

Normally you have to have a model release.

However, in this case the people releasing the video would rely upon Paris being famous, thus a Public Figure, and newsworthy.

Look at all the pictures and videos from the paparatzi - they never have anything signed, yet they are on tons of magazines and E! TV.

[Fletch XXX]

I honestly dont see how just because she is popular that measn someone can take a sex video of her and sell it in our industry. If you had a vid of her getting out of her car, thats one thing, but a sex tape?

This means You can take a vid of your ex girlfriend and make a site about her, same thing.

Do you not think this goes against the basic priniciple of our industry?

Without a model release you cant market a video, but in this case you can?

think its backwards and is sending a negative image (more than normal) on our industry.



Last edited by Fletch XXX at Nov 13 2003, 01:37 PM

[sarettah]

You can pretty much "market" anything you want........

If you deliver on the product then you could be in trouble......


:yowsa:

[Fletch XXX]

True.

I just have to stand by the fact this goes against the basic principle of model releases in our industry.

Pornkings and or whoever is charging for and delivering this video is doing what people have shunned upon since the old days.

The unlawful use of video of someone else without a model release to do so.

They can hide behind, 'he said it was legal' all they want, no different than a content privder not having model releases and you being the victim.



Last edited by Fletch XXX at Nov 13 2003, 02:39 PM

[gregtx]

I too wondered about the legality of that.. how do they know she was even 18 when that video was shot?... better yet how can anyone prove it?

I thought 2257 docs were set up to protect against this exact thing..

if that is the case.. they are finding a loop hole because she is famous.. what will the litmus test be to decide if someone is famous???

I guess it would need to be tested in a court to really find out eh???

[nlphoto]

Not only no release, but *no* 2257 documentation...

about as illegal as it gets...



:zoinks:

[Digipimp]

I think you're on to part of the basic principle. But what 2257 is really all about is just being able to prove that the girl is of age. When shooting videos of average girls that no one would know from anyone else you need to have your papers tight, but something like Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson and so on it's not like that. That is because it's all about being able to prove age, now if the girl is unknown and you don't have documentation how do you easily prove she is of age. Well you call, she moved, phone number changed, bla bla bla, the police don't know who she is, so it's your word against theirs if it's suspect. However with a celebrity of public figure age is easily attainable because of the persons star status so it's technically a violation of 2257 but it wouldn't hold up because age is easily verifiable on a star.

[cherrylula]

I actually scanned a news article about this today, can't find the link now, but it was saying that Paris Hilton claims she was underage when that video was shot.

But I haven't seen it said anywhere else. It would be funny if that is the case!

[nlphoto]

Originally posted by Digipimp@Nov 13 2003, 05:32 PM
I think you're on to part of the basic principle. But what 2257 is really all about is just being able to prove that the girl is of age. When shooting videos of average girls that no one would know from anyone else you need to have your papers tight, but something like Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson and so on it's not like that. That is because it's all about being able to prove age, now if the girl is unknown and you don't have documentation how do you easily prove she is of age. Well you call, she moved, phone number changed, bla bla bla, the police don't know who she is, so it's your word against theirs if it's suspect. However with a celebrity of public figure age is easily attainable because of the persons star status so it's technically a violation of 2257 but it wouldn't hold up because age is easily verifiable on a star.

Even though you are correct, in the same way that bars/liquor stores do not
card people buying liquor that appear to be over thirty, I do not think that
would hold up if brought up in a court case.

I have shot several recognizable models that are well known... Tera Patrick,
Nikki Nova, Brittany Andrews... but I still have to get ID documentation for
2257, as well as model releases. Nowhere in 2257 does it even remotely imply
that if the subject is "well known" that the producer is exempt. Hell, even the
mature sites need the same documentation, even though its obvious that
the model is "of age".



Last edited by nlphoto at Nov 13 2003, 05:58 PM

[Peaches]

Originally posted by cherrylula@Nov 13 2003, 08:41 PM
I actually scanned a news article about this today, can't find the link now, but it was saying that Paris Hilton claims she was underage when that video was shot.

But I haven't seen it said anywhere else. It would be funny if that is the case!
Here it is (http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/10722.htm)

It's such BS. If she was underage at the time, then why haven't there been charges filed against Solomon? :unsure:

Here's an odd contradictory quote:

"This is a lie. We know Paris has done other tapes. There is only one tape of [Hilton] having sex with Rick. Period." :blink:

[cherrylula]

Originally posted by Peaches+Nov 13 2003, 05:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Nov 13 2003, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--cherrylula@Nov 13 2003, 08:41 PM
I actually scanned a news article about this today, can't find the link now, but it was saying that Paris Hilton claims she was underage when that video was shot.

But I haven't seen it said anywhere else. It would be funny if that is the case!
Here it is (http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/10722.htm)

It's such BS. If she was underage at the time, then why haven't there been charges filed against Solomon? :unsure:

Here's an odd contradictory quote:

"This is a lie. We know Paris has done other tapes. There is only one tape of [Hilton] having sex with Rick. Period." :blink:[/b][/quote]
Thats what I figured. What a little cunt for saying that.

[Fletch XXX]

I didnt bring up the 2257 at all.

I am asking solely about the model release.

obviously the whore was of age, theres no disputing that, but the model release is without a doubt a necessity in this indusry, it just shows the lack of class on some thats all.

The law need not apply to the popular programs only the small guy.

What a crock of shit, I wouldnt push any sponsor that has anything to do with it myself.

[quiet]

easily the most over-hyped video in the past 6-7 years. the pam and tommy vid was much better, and it was boring as hell after the first view.

[Mike AI]

Video was definately all hype!

As far as fair use of content and people images - if people had to sign model releases all the time - there would be no images on the news.

The First Amendment trumps all laws, and if its newsworthy, you can publish it....

[bluedesignstudios]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 13 2003, 06:40 PM
Video was definately all hype!

As far as fair use of content and people images - if people had to sign model releases all the time - there would be no images on the news.

The First Amendment trumps all laws, and if its newsworthy, you can publish it....
Newsworthy... now that's an interesting term...

How do you define that? It would seem a bit grey to me - I think any video of anybody fucking is newsworth in my books, maybe the lawmakers think otherwise though :o

[sarettah]

Actually, the news worthiness of the Hilton tape is created by the fact she is well known and that they announced they had it.... The media and Hilton family reaction to it's existence and threat of release is "the news"....

The release of the tape is the final outcome... the end of the story per se...

Same with the Lynch tape.... It became newsworthy because she became wellknown and then the existence of the tape became known....

You could play that with almost any poiece of video of anyone....

Take a video of an unknown..... Tell the press and the person that you are going to release a tape of so and so.... If the media reacts strongly enough or if the person goes publically to the legal system at that point, the tape becomes newsworthy....

imho of course....

[Carrie]

People videotape themselves having sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse all the time - it does not make them a "whore".

I agree that jumping on this bandwagon just supports the naysayers' assumption that what we do is illegal and we care not about the law.
If it's grey, stay away...

No model release, it was *not* in a public place - no one should be touching it with a ten foot pole.

[baddog]

Originally posted by gregtx@Nov 13 2003, 02:45 PM
I too wondered about the legality of that.. how do they know she was even 18 when that video was shot?... better yet how can anyone prove it?

I thought 2257 docs were set up to protect against this exact thing..

if that is the case.. they are finding a loop hole because she is famous.. what will the litmus test be to decide if someone is famous???

I guess it would need to be tested in a court to really find out eh???
she is saying she wasn't 18 when the video was taken. . . . which begs the question, will Solomon be arrested for statuatory rape?

[baddog]

never mind . . . .guess I should have read the entire thread first