|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Now we gotta get photo ID's:-/"
MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
I'll speak to my staff then deal with the 10 recent threads. I need their permission (moral more than written) about you being able to put the pics into the VIP area and make money. (I own the rights, hold all the legal requirements and could be a hard ass with them, but not a the moment. There's enough pain in the world.)
Okay. Let me clear a fact up. There are going to be some who will ask why did I not go to DM? If I've got something to say. I'll say it in public or not at all. This is a professional disagreement between MM and I, not a mud-slinging match. (Shit, but there it is.) I want to make that clear. I run my business my way, him his. At the moment our worlds are not aligning. I will still join in on the forums etc. There will be threads in - some form - in the near future. Not sure what form?!? But I'll thash that out in a couple of days.
Regards,
Andy and the team.
I'll speak to my staff then deal with the 10 recent threads. I need their permission (moral more than written) about you being able to put the pics into the VIP area and make money. (I own the rights, hold all the legal requirements and could be a hard ass with them, but not a the moment. There's enough pain in the world.)
Okay. Let me clear a fact up. There are going to be some who will ask why did I not go to DM? If I've got something to say. I'll say it in public or not at all. This is a professional disagreement between MM and I, not a mud-slinging match. (Shit, but there it is.) I want to make that clear. I run my business my way, him his. At the moment our worlds are not aligning. I will still join in on the forums etc. There will be threads in - some form - in the near future. Not sure what form?!? But I'll thash that out in a couple of days.
Regards,
Andy and the team.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
I'll speak to my staff then deal with the 10 recent threads. I need their permission (moral more than written) about you being able to put the pics into the VIP area and make money. (I own the rights, hold all the legal requirements and could be a hard ass with them, but not a the moment. There's enough pain in the world.)
Okay. Let me clear a fact up. There are going to be some who will ask why did I not go to DM? If I've got something to say. I'll say it in public or not at all. This is a professional disagreement between MM and I, not a mud-slinging match. (Shit, but there it is.) I want to make that clear. I run my business my way, him his. At the moment our worlds are not aligning. I will still join in on the forums etc. There will be threads in - some form - in the near future. Not sure what form?!? But I'll thash that out in a couple of days.
Regards,
Andy and the team.
I'll speak to my staff then deal with the 10 recent threads. I need their permission (moral more than written) about you being able to put the pics into the VIP area and make money. (I own the rights, hold all the legal requirements and could be a hard ass with them, but not a the moment. There's enough pain in the world.)
Okay. Let me clear a fact up. There are going to be some who will ask why did I not go to DM? If I've got something to say. I'll say it in public or not at all. This is a professional disagreement between MM and I, not a mud-slinging match. (Shit, but there it is.) I want to make that clear. I run my business my way, him his. At the moment our worlds are not aligning. I will still join in on the forums etc. There will be threads in - some form - in the near future. Not sure what form?!? But I'll thash that out in a couple of days.
Regards,
Andy and the team.
This is a bizarre argument. Nobody with VIP status has access to anything more than those without. It's just easier to get to and find.
It's rather like paying to join a newspaper archive online. You're not paying for the content - which is likely to be free on microfiche at your local library - but for the fact that you can search the content and not have to physically wade through every page of every newspaper to find what you're looking for.
Therefore nothing of yours is being "sold" via VIP, just easier access. And things have been this way for a very long time, so it seems odd that you are only now alarmed by it.
What's more your entire profile consists of links to other sites and, presumably, you're not paying UMD for that advertising space? What's more, "hoovering up your trailers" is actually saying that VIP is keeping adverts your product in circulation, which seems a good thing, not bad.
johnnypie said: One thing that's worth noting is that while the battles will continue, anti-porn groups have lost every major war. Playboy was sued and more famously, Hustler was sued. The gov't lost both cases. Porn is everywhere.
But back to us winning the war. Porn is everywhere and it's been generally conceded that it's not going anywhere. You don't see any FBI raid on porn studios or even local raid (barring sex trafficking and underage.)
But back to us winning the war. Porn is everywhere and it's been generally conceded that it's not going anywhere. You don't see any FBI raid on porn studios or even local raid (barring sex trafficking and underage.)
And that is what I like to point out every time I enter this discussion. Having lived my entire life in an extremely repressed fundamentalist Christian environment, I am probably the only person here who has listened to Jerry Falwell in person. I don't just read about the Moral Majority I go to lunch with some of them. When discussed they are usually surprised to realize that there is now more "porn" available through more channels to more people for less cost than any time in human history. And it's increasing. And there is nothing done or attempted since the early 80's that has stemmed the flow even a fraction. You'd be surprised how many now accept this. My bet is that everyone else will too someday.
Dirty Job but I got to do it 20+ years. Thanks.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
I concur with @webcamplayer, that is a very bizarre approach to take. UMD isn't selling your content, all MM is doing is monetising easier access to existing free content for those who pay a little extra. Which goes to support the whole UMD eccosystem, which ultimately sends us all tons of traffic. Don't get me wrong, as a producer I love the idea of a competitor deliberately destroying all their own advertising - more traffic for the rest of us - but are you really sure that's what you want to do?
Meanwhile, back in the general porn debate, anyone remember that UK government "porn block" that everyone thought safely dead? Seems no-one staked it through the heart properly, as a couple of people, a dad of four sons who discovered one of them had started watching porn, and a student anti-porn campaigner, are taking the UK government to court for not enforcing that law - it passed and is on the statute books, just has never actually been implemented. So that whole sorry farce may come back after all. Big feature in the main BBC news last night so the campaigners are likely to get a load of extra public support and funding for their legal action.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
Meanwhile, back in the general porn debate, anyone remember that UK government "porn block" that everyone thought safely dead? Seems no-one staked it through the heart properly, as a couple of people, a dad of four sons who discovered one of them had started watching porn, and a student anti-porn campaigner, are taking the UK government to court for not enforcing that law - it passed and is on the statute books, just has never actually been implemented. So that whole sorry farce may come back after all. Big feature in the main BBC news last night so the campaigners are likely to get a load of extra public support and funding for their legal action.
Oh for fuck's sake. I swear, if I ever have any kids, I'm gonna make sure I DON'T raise them like all of these Helen Lovejoy types that think porn and sex are the biggest dangers to their children.
DungeonMasterOne said:
I concur with @webcamplayer, that is a very bizarre approach to take. UMD isn't selling your content, all MM is doing is monetising easier access to existing free content for those who pay a little extra. Which goes to support the whole UMD eccosystem, which ultimately sends us all tons of traffic. Don't get me wrong, as a producer I love the idea of a competitor deliberately destroying all their own advertising - more traffic for the rest of us - but are you really sure that's what you want to do?
Meanwhile, back in the general porn debate, anyone remember that UK government "porn block" that everyone thought safely dead? Seems no-one staked it through the heart properly, as a couple of people, a dad of four sons who discovered one of them had started watching porn, and a student anti-porn campaigner, are taking the UK government to court for not enforcing that law - it passed and is on the statute books, just has never actually been implemented. So that whole sorry farce may come back after all. Big feature in the main BBC news last night so the campaigners are likely to get a load of extra public support and funding for their legal action.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
I concur with @webcamplayer, that is a very bizarre approach to take. UMD isn't selling your content, all MM is doing is monetising easier access to existing free content for those who pay a little extra. Which goes to support the whole UMD eccosystem, which ultimately sends us all tons of traffic. Don't get me wrong, as a producer I love the idea of a competitor deliberately destroying all their own advertising - more traffic for the rest of us - but are you really sure that's what you want to do?
Meanwhile, back in the general porn debate, anyone remember that UK government "porn block" that everyone thought safely dead? Seems no-one staked it through the heart properly, as a couple of people, a dad of four sons who discovered one of them had started watching porn, and a student anti-porn campaigner, are taking the UK government to court for not enforcing that law - it passed and is on the statute books, just has never actually been implemented. So that whole sorry farce may come back after all. Big feature in the main BBC news last night so the campaigners are likely to get a load of extra public support and funding for their legal action.
I think that's unlikely. The PM can't even comb his hair, let alone put through such a bill - considering how much opposition it had both within parliament and amongst the general public. It's actually only at the white paper stage anyway, and isn't even due to reach parliament for some time to come, even if they decide to resurrect it
A quick side note on that subject if I may, as there have been a number of times in the last few years where parents have tried to take media companies and individuals to court over material that their kids have accessed, most notably about the Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" where one fifteen-year-old killed themselves (apparently because of the TV show) and another mother said her 10-year-old was traumatised by the series - a series that has an 18 certificate in the UK, I might add, and endless warnings before each episode.
While what happened to the kids in question is very sad, and what happened to the boy who had apparently started watching porn is either unfortunate or completely natural (depending on age), the question here is why the parents weren't monitoring what their kids were watching on Netflix and why the dad didn't monitor internet access more carefully. Apparently there is new research showing that the majority of 16 and 17 years olds had seen porn at some point. And this is apparently news. I grew up before the days of the internet and had also seen porn at that age, as had most of my peers. And, I'm guessing, most people here had, too.
There is, I think, a tendency for parents to want to blame others for what is ultimately poor parenting. The pastor whose son saw the porn is saying he saw it despite internet blocks. Well, if he worked a way around them, he would also be likely to work around any checks implemented by the govt too. I would think most teenagers know how to use a VPN. Likewise with the TV show, if you're going to let a ten year old watch a programme about drugs, violence, rape and suicide, then he's likely to be traumatised. It's not Netflix's fault, it's the parents'.
While I understand that there are issues within the porn world that need to be sorted and cracked down upon (of course they do), a sledgehammer to crack a nut never works. You just end up with a big dent in your kitchen worktop that is only going to cause you even more problems in the future. And that is what would happen here - with both the UK bill and the CC company's apparent plans. The people who abuse others making their porn will simply go more underground and cover their tracks better, thus making it even more difficult to stop.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads.
I can remove them all in a second if you like, but I wouldn't go do 1182 as that would have to be done manually... let me know either way. Also if you're uncomfortable with UMD monetizing your content, then do you want me to also remove your directory listings and social media links, or should we still send you free traffic? Also, should I remove your pics and blogs? Let me know.
Messmaster
Stay messy, my friends
Funny how someone is mad because they think their work is being monetized like there is a UMD private island or penthouse somewhere that has a vault of VIP money to swim in, yet have no problem using server space and bandwidth for free to advertise their products which then makes them money. Shouldn't they be paying UMD for the advertising space, hosting pictures etc? Man this got silly fast.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
You've been here 15 years and don't understand how the VIP thing works?
Amazing.
noise said:
You've been here 15 years and don't understand how the VIP thing works?
Amazing.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
You've been here 15 years and don't understand how the VIP thing works?
Amazing.
UMD has a right to cover their costs for hosting space and for providing all WAM fans with a home to communicate with each other, and they also provide all Wam Creators with all the tools and hosting facilities in order to monetize their creations as well. It's a very failr deal for all wam creators. Contrast how UMD provides a welcome mat and home for any Wam Creators, versus how Youtube treat's WAM creators....i.e. ....
.... Youtube does NOT welcome Wam Creators and while it tolerates most G and PG rated Wam Creators, they SCAM them by taking your creations and making money off your creations while denying YOU the creator the right to monetize your creations. Youtube has a neat scam going ... which works like this...
- Youtube have their TOS rules / Community Standards that do not allow adult erotica (which is fair enough) but they WILL allow G and PG rated non nude WAM scenes to be posted on a Youtube channel, so you can upload non sexual WAM to Youtube and they will allow it.
- In order to monetize a Youtube channel you need to apply for a Google Adsense account and then you hit an additional set of rules, whereby they review your content and then decide if you are eligible or not to apply.
- Recently Youtube accelerated their new "Age Gating" scam on videos, and now they "Age Gate" videos which they ALLOW on Youtube, but only people who are over 18 are supposed to watch them and they are hidden from kids etc......which is fair enough. Videos that are Age-Gated can NOT be imbedded in external blog sites -- you get a black screen that forces your blog readers to EXIT your blog site and visit Youtube to watch the video. They claim this is a "Trust and Safety" issue -- which is poppycock, because if a video is considered unsafe for my blog viewers to watch on my blog site, how does it magically become safe again for them to watch that same video if they leave my blog and watch it on Youtube. This is pure b/s and is a scam to steal traffic from blog sites and force more traffic to their Youtube site instead.
- When you apply to monetize on Google, they now have a new criteria rule that says if you have "too many" (whatever that means) Age Gated videos on your channel you are disqualified from applying for monetization. In my case I have over 700 videos in my YT channel and around 10% have been Age Gated, not by me, but by automatic bot programs that assess my videos automatically. Even though I have no nudity and nothing sexual in my YT clips certain "trigger words" will cause an immediate Age Gate enforcement by the bots. One such magic word is "mud", because any time I mentioned that word in my titles the bots wake up and Age Gate my video. Their bots algorithms are programmed to think that MUD=PORN. I have learned how to appease their idiot bot programs by adding certain words that counteract the bots....e.g. add the word "Comedy" or "Prank" to any title and it is like a "get out of jail free card" because the bots think that any clips that mention "Comedy" can't be porn.
- In my case I have less than 10% of my YT videos Age Gated these days, because I avoid the bots by using sanitizing words like "comedy", but even with 90% of my 700 YT clips not being Age Gated, they still REJECT my applications for monetization, saying that they feel even though my videos are NOT a violation of their Community Standards, they reject me for monetization on the basis that they feel my clips are, in their words ... "Sexually gratifying content".
OK....it is their platform, and they can deny Wam producers the right to monetize if they choose to do so......but here comes the SCAM...
....Youtube's Terms of Service say that even for NON-monetized channels like mine, where I average 750,000 views per month, while I cannot monetize Youtube has the right to run ads against my videos, so they disallow me from joining their Ad Program, but they retain the rights to run ads against my videos anyway.
Getting back to the original point, UMD has a right to cover their infrastructure costs and they are very fair and welcoming to all WAM creators and offer them all the tools they need to monetize their media on UMD. Youtube is a scammer because they deny WAM creators the right to monetize while THEY retain the rights to run ads against your media and not share those proceeds with the creators.
MK
Do unto others, then run
wamtec said:
UMD has a right to cover their costs for hosting space and for providing all WAM fans with a home to communicate with each other, and they also provide all Wam Creators with all the tools and hosting facilities in order to monetize their creations as well. It's a very failr deal for all wam creators. Contrast how UMD provides a welcome mat and home for any Wam Creators, versus how Youtube treat's WAM creators....i.e. ....
.... Youtube does NOT welcome Wam Creators and while it tolerates most G and PG rated Wam Creators, they SCAM them by taking your creations and making money off your creations while denying YOU the creator the right to monetize your creations. Youtube has a neat scam going ... which works like this...
- Youtube have their TOS rules / Community Standards that do not allow adult erotica (which is fair enough) but they WILL allow G and PG rated non nude WAM scenes to be posted on a Youtube channel, so you can upload non sexual WAM to Youtube and they will allow it.
- In order to monetize a Youtube channel you need to apply for a Google Adsense account and then you hit an additional set of rules, whereby they review your content and then decide if you are eligible or not to apply.
- Recently Youtube accelerated their new "Age Gating" scam on videos, and now they "Age Gate" videos which they ALLOW on Youtube, but only people who are over 18 are supposed to watch them and they are hidden from kids etc......which is fair enough. Videos that are Age-Gated can NOT be imbedded in external blog sites -- you get a black screen that forces your blog readers to EXIT your blog site and visit Youtube to watch the video. They claim this is a "Trust and Safety" issue -- which is poppycock, because if a video is considered unsafe for my blog viewers to watch on my blog site, how does it magically become safe again for them to watch that same video if they leave my blog and watch it on Youtube. This is pure b/s and is a scam to steal traffic from blog sites and force more traffic to their Youtube site instead.
- When you apply to monetize on Google, they now have a new criteria rule that says if you have "too many" (whatever that means) Age Gated videos on your channel you are disqualified from applying for monetization. In my case I have over 700 videos in my YT channel and around 10% have been Age Gated, not by me, but by automatic bot programs that assess my videos automatically. Even though I have no nudity and nothing sexual in my YT clips certain "trigger words" will cause an immediate Age Gate enforcement by the bots. One such magic word is "mud", because any time I mentioned that word in my titles the bots wake up and Age Gate my video. Their bots algorithms are programmed to think that MUD=PORN. I have learned how to appease their idiot bot programs by adding certain words that counteract the bots....e.g. add the word "Comedy" or "Prank" to any title and it is like a "get out of jail free card" because the bots think that any clips that mention "Comedy" can't be porn.
- In my case I have less than 10% of my YT videos Age Gated these days, because I avoid the bots by using sanitizing words like "comedy", but even with 90% of my 700 YT clips not being Age Gated, they still REJECT my applications for monetization, saying that they feel even though my videos are NOT a violation of their Community Standards, they reject me for monetization on the basis that they feel my clips are, in their words ... "Sexually gratifying content".
OK....it is their platform, and they can deny Wam producers the right to monetize if they choose to do so......but here comes the SCAM...
....Youtube's Terms of Service say that even for NON-monetized channels like mine, where I average 750,000 views per month, while I cannot monetize Youtube has the right to run ads against my videos, so they disallow me from joining their Ad Program, but they retain the rights to run ads against my videos anyway.
Getting back to the original point, UMD has a right to cover their infrastructure costs and they are very fair and welcoming to all WAM creators and offer them all the tools they need to monetize their media on UMD. Youtube is a scammer because they deny WAM creators the right to monetize while THEY retain the rights to run ads against your media and not share those proceeds with the creators.
MK
noise said:
You've been here 15 years and don't understand how the VIP thing works?
Amazing.
123gunge said: MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.
You've been here 15 years and don't understand how the VIP thing works?
Amazing.
UMD has a right to cover their costs for hosting space and for providing all WAM fans with a home to communicate with each other, and they also provide all Wam Creators with all the tools and hosting facilities in order to monetize their creations as well. It's a very failr deal for all wam creators. Contrast how UMD provides a welcome mat and home for any Wam Creators, versus how Youtube treat's WAM creators....i.e. ....
.... Youtube does NOT welcome Wam Creators and while it tolerates most G and PG rated Wam Creators, they SCAM them by taking your creations and making money off your creations while denying YOU the creator the right to monetize your creations. Youtube has a neat scam going ... which works like this...
- Youtube have their TOS rules / Community Standards that do not allow adult erotica (which is fair enough) but they WILL allow G and PG rated non nude WAM scenes to be posted on a Youtube channel, so you can upload non sexual WAM to Youtube and they will allow it.
- In order to monetize a Youtube channel you need to apply for a Google Adsense account and then you hit an additional set of rules, whereby they review your content and then decide if you are eligible or not to apply.
- Recently Youtube accelerated their new "Age Gating" scam on videos, and now they "Age Gate" videos which they ALLOW on Youtube, but only people who are over 18 are supposed to watch them and they are hidden from kids etc......which is fair enough. Videos that are Age-Gated can NOT be imbedded in external blog sites -- you get a black screen that forces your blog readers to EXIT your blog site and visit Youtube to watch the video. They claim this is a "Trust and Safety" issue -- which is poppycock, because if a video is considered unsafe for my blog viewers to watch on my blog site, how does it magically become safe again for them to watch that same video if they leave my blog and watch it on Youtube. This is pure b/s and is a scam to steal traffic from blog sites and force more traffic to their Youtube site instead.
- When you apply to monetize on Google, they now have a new criteria rule that says if you have "too many" (whatever that means) Age Gated videos on your channel you are disqualified from applying for monetization. In my case I have over 700 videos in my YT channel and around 10% have been Age Gated, not by me, but by automatic bot programs that assess my videos automatically. Even though I have no nudity and nothing sexual in my YT clips certain "trigger words" will cause an immediate Age Gate enforcement by the bots. One such magic word is "mud", because any time I mentioned that word in my titles the bots wake up and Age Gate my video. Their bots algorithms are programmed to think that MUD=PORN. I have learned how to appease their idiot bot programs by adding certain words that counteract the bots....e.g. add the word "Comedy" or "Prank" to any title and it is like a "get out of jail free card" because the bots think that any clips that mention "Comedy" can't be porn.
- In my case I have less than 10% of my YT videos Age Gated these days, because I avoid the bots by using sanitizing words like "comedy", but even with 90% of my 700 YT clips not being Age Gated, they still REJECT my applications for monetization, saying that they feel even though my videos are NOT a violation of their Community Standards, they reject me for monetization on the basis that they feel my clips are, in their words ... "Sexually gratifying content".
OK....it is their platform, and they can deny Wam producers the right to monetize if they choose to do so......but here comes the SCAM...
....Youtube's Terms of Service say that even for NON-monetized channels like mine, where I average 750,000 views per month, while I cannot monetize Youtube has the right to run ads against my videos, so they disallow me from joining their Ad Program, but they retain the rights to run ads against my videos anyway.
Getting back to the original point, UMD has a right to cover their infrastructure costs and they are very fair and welcoming to all WAM creators and offer them all the tools they need to monetize their media on UMD. Youtube is a scammer because they deny WAM creators the right to monetize while THEY retain the rights to run ads against your media and not share those proceeds with the creators.
MK
Youtube is my bitch. I use and abuse them to drive mad traffic to my pay site and make a killing: https://ibb.co/K0s9WjG
I make 20X's more than I ever would off their scam ad system. You just need to know how to game them.
 Love you, too |
johnnypie said:
Youtube is my bitch. I use and abuse them to drive mad traffic to my pay site and make a killing: https://ibb.co/K0s9WjG
I make 20X's more than I ever would off their scam ad system. You just need to know how to game them.
Youtube is my bitch. I use and abuse them to drive mad traffic to my pay site and make a killing: https://ibb.co/K0s9WjG
I make 20X's more than I ever would off their scam ad system. You just need to know how to game them.
Yeah, I do the same thing as well, to drive traffic to my external site.
What is your Youtube channel address.
Do unto others, then run
5/7/21, 8:11pm: User has claimed post does not purposely direct users to forbidden site "VK"
johnnypie said: The other question I have is let's say I'm doing a pie shoot in a hotel. It's a non-nude pie shoot. If the police showed up, would they be able to arrest me and the model? (Probably wouldn't, it's hypothetical.)
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
If you were to be arrested while filming a fully dressed model doing a pie video, the burden of proof would be on the police to prove you were filming pornographic material or anything obscene.
It's not against any laws to make a silly comedy video, and I doubt they'd be able to meet the requirements to prove that any material you created prior to arrest was intended to arouse or intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind.
VegasWam said:
If you were to be arrested while filming a fully dressed model doing a pie video, the burden of proof would be on the police to prove you were filming pornographic material or anything obscene.
It's not against any laws to make a silly comedy video, and I doubt they'd be able to meet the requirements to prove that any material you created prior to arrest was intended to arouse or intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind.
johnnypie said: The other question I have is let's say I'm doing a pie shoot in a hotel. It's a non-nude pie shoot. If the police showed up, would they be able to arrest me and the model? (Probably wouldn't, it's hypothetical.)
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
If you were to be arrested while filming a fully dressed model doing a pie video, the burden of proof would be on the police to prove you were filming pornographic material or anything obscene.
It's not against any laws to make a silly comedy video, and I doubt they'd be able to meet the requirements to prove that any material you created prior to arrest was intended to arouse or intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind.
Unfortunately it would not be hard to prove it was "pornographic". All the Police need to do is find enough people in a grand jury who prefer things vanilla and are uptight to press charges.
dalamar666 said:
Unfortunately it would not be hard to prove it was "pornographic". All the Police need to do is find enough people in a grand jury who prefer things vanilla and are uptight to press charges.
VegasWam said:
If you were to be arrested while filming a fully dressed model doing a pie video, the burden of proof would be on the police to prove you were filming pornographic material or anything obscene.
It's not against any laws to make a silly comedy video, and I doubt they'd be able to meet the requirements to prove that any material you created prior to arrest was intended to arouse or intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind.
johnnypie said: The other question I have is let's say I'm doing a pie shoot in a hotel. It's a non-nude pie shoot. If the police showed up, would they be able to arrest me and the model? (Probably wouldn't, it's hypothetical.)
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.
I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.
If you were to be arrested while filming a fully dressed model doing a pie video, the burden of proof would be on the police to prove you were filming pornographic material or anything obscene.
It's not against any laws to make a silly comedy video, and I doubt they'd be able to meet the requirements to prove that any material you created prior to arrest was intended to arouse or intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind.
Unfortunately it would not be hard to prove it was "pornographic". All the Police need to do is find enough people in a grand jury who prefer things vanilla and are uptight to press charges.
The police have nothing to do with any jury selection in the United States, and any defense attorney worth a damn would make sure it's not a biased and puritanically inclined jury. Plus in many jurisdictions, a judge might just be inclined to throw out the charges on the basis of the case being a waste of time and too difficult to prove.
I just got hit with Mastercard's revised standards for adult content merchants. They go into effect October 15. We're already compliant with basically all of it, but they are pretty specific with the model consent stuff, so I'll share that with you. I might make another announcement as the rules become even more clear, but for now I'll just update this thread.
They want to make sure that we require you to keep written consent from all models 1) to be depicted in the content, 2) for the content to be uploaded, and 3) for the content to be made available for download. As far as I'm concerned, if you have signed model release forms (which clarify intellectual property), then you already satisfy all these requirements. You might want update your standard release form to mention these things specifically. I'm updating our model release template too. We don't have to require you to send us your model releases, but you have to keep them for your own records.
Another requirement is that you should be able to provide supporting documents to prove model age and identity upon request. We've always required you to verify the photo ID's of all your models, but this is the first time you've really been required to keep copies. You still won't have to send them to us unless we're forced to ask you for some reason.
The revised agreement is clearly aimed at tube sites, so it says that all content uploaders will be required to be verified. But does that pertain to non-explicit content? How about pictures and textual content? I'll update you once I learn more about that.
TLDR; You still don't have to send us your model releases or ID's, but you do have to keep them for your own records.
They want to make sure that we require you to keep written consent from all models 1) to be depicted in the content, 2) for the content to be uploaded, and 3) for the content to be made available for download. As far as I'm concerned, if you have signed model release forms (which clarify intellectual property), then you already satisfy all these requirements. You might want update your standard release form to mention these things specifically. I'm updating our model release template too. We don't have to require you to send us your model releases, but you have to keep them for your own records.
Another requirement is that you should be able to provide supporting documents to prove model age and identity upon request. We've always required you to verify the photo ID's of all your models, but this is the first time you've really been required to keep copies. You still won't have to send them to us unless we're forced to ask you for some reason.
The revised agreement is clearly aimed at tube sites, so it says that all content uploaders will be required to be verified. But does that pertain to non-explicit content? How about pictures and textual content? I'll update you once I learn more about that.
TLDR; You still don't have to send us your model releases or ID's, but you do have to keep them for your own records.
Stay messy, my friends
Oh, and soon I will have to take stores and videos offline if there is explicit content and I haven't gotten a photo ID yet. Jury is still out on whether this will affect pictures.
Stay messy, my friends
