So...Ethics in the Mainstream Clips Section?

brotherted said:

Let's say a woman posts a video of yourself on YouTube dancing, wearing a belly shirt. She considers it a fun, dancing video. It gets a million views.

Then she realizes the same link has been posted on a belly button fetishists' website.

Does she then feel victimized? I don't think so. I think we all have the right to decide what content of ourselves is posted publicly or is kept private. But once we make it public, we don't have the right to police whether a group we consider gross or depraved links to it.

Click to expand...

Belly dancing is seen as sexual and adult in a way tickling is not. If it were a less sexual dance I'd think also think it's immoral to post, but belly dancing is somewhat similar to twerking and pole dancing. Most people see Belly dancing as sexy or at least sensual, while very few people interpret tickling in that way. There is a moral grey area about posting it, but at the very least the poster of a belly dancing video would be more aware of how it can be taken. There is definetly room to debate that though.

I like the balloon metaphor someone used earlier. Just because someone consents to having a video on youtube in a completely different context doesn't mean they'd feel comfortable with it on a porn site. And that's ultimately what this is about to me. If they wouldn't personally feel comfortable with their videos being used in this way, we shouldn't post it here plain and simple.

People can use the videos however they like personally, I don't think that's immoral. Posting it here is where I start to get uneasy.

I'd just said "dancing" in a shirt that revealed her belly, i.e. not belly dancing per se, but it's not important. Make it a workout video if that example is easier to consider non-sexual. I still wouldn't think someone with a popular, public workout video would then feel violated if a fetish site linked to it.

It seems we respectfully disagree anyway, because I don't think the balloon example, if the balloon video were already completely public, would really bother someone to learn that some oddball kink site also linked to it. This was like my example of the comedy video I did wearing the monster costume, if a "furry lovers" club later linked to it. If I don't consider the content embarrassing -- then I don't consider the content embarrassing -- no matter who links to it.

If the person said they would not feel ok with their YouTube vid being uploaded onto PornHub...would it be ok if you went ahead and did it anyway?

GirlMeetsTickle said:

If the person said they would not feel ok with their YouTube vid being uploaded onto PornHub...would it be ok if you went ahead and did it anyway?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be ok but the difference there is that pornhub is a commercial porn site, paid for by memberships and heavy porn ads embedded in and around videos. That means it's monetised so if you post someone's Youtube vid on there without permission then you are breaching their copyright. If it's on a free site in the public domain (i.e. Youtube) and someone links to it on another free site then it isn't the same thing as it's not being used commercially.

When you post to Youtube, you have the option of keeping videos private and sharing links with only the people you want to. If you post a video publically then you are basically saying that everyone can see it and you forego the right to privacy - that may include it being linked to in places you may not want it to, and being viewed by people you may not want to see it. People can have personal judgements over taste, ethics etc but that has no bearing on whether or not it's ok to share it. Basically, if the video is public and you are not changing the contents or misrepresenting them, using it to abuse someone, monetising it or using it for other commercial gain then it should be fine to link to it. Ethical issues (such as whether it features minors, vulberable people etc) would be judged by the website itself - i.e. the moderators of the TMF - which is how it happens here anyway.

If you post to pornhub, you are basically claiming copyright and re-publishing the video, adding keywords, descriptions, and classifying it as a type of porn in the process. Even models who shoot content for my sites don't like it when their clips appear on pornhub because it is not the site that they shot for.

GirlMeetsTickle said:

If the person said they would not feel ok with their YouTube vid being uploaded onto PornHub...would it be ok if you went ahead and did it anyway?

Click to expand...

For me, uploading a vanilla video to a porn site is entirely different than linking to a vanilla video from a fetish site. The first is a copyright violation; the second is not.

brotherted said:

For me, uploading a vanilla video to a porn site is entirely different than linking to a vanilla video from a fetish site. The first is a copyright violation; the second is not.

Click to expand...

How's it different? Both generate income through advertising and are sites that are sexual in nature. One hosts the videos, the other doesn't.

Wolf said:

How's it different? Both generate income through advertising and are sites that are sexual in nature. One hosts the videos, the other doesn't.

Click to expand...

It's a copyright and publishing issue. Pornhub is a commercial porn site that re-publishes the content in order to generate income, the TMF isn't. It's a public forum and clips shared on it don't make money for the owners.

Wolf said:

How's it different? Both generate income through advertising and are sites that are sexual in nature. One hosts the videos, the other doesn't.

Click to expand...

Copyright violations require someone's content to be copied without their consent. The act of downloading someone else's video, then uploading it to a different website, results in a new copy being made of the content. That's analogous to scanning and re-printing a book written by someone else. But web URLs are not considered copyrightable content, so posting links isn't treated as copying. In other words, you're allowed to post web links to other people's content all day long to your heart's content, and even sell ads to your site of web links, and you'll have no copyright problem.

That's how a website like Drudgereport doesn't have copyright problems, even though 99.9% of what it offers are links to media stories created by and owned by other groups -- and DrudgeReport still sells ads on its page of links to other groups' stories.

brotherted said:

Copyright violations require someone's content to be copied without their consent. The act of downloading someone else's video, then uploading it to a different website, results in a new copy being made of the content. That's analogous to scanning and re-printing a book written by someone else. But web URLs are not considered copyrightable content, so posting links isn't treated as copying. In other words, you're allowed to post web links to other people's content all day long to your heart's content, and even sell ads to your site of web links, and you'll have no copyright problem.

That's how a website like Drudgereport doesn't have copyright problems, even though 99.9% of what it offers are links to media stories created by and owned by other groups -- and DrudgeReport still sells ads on its page of links to other groups' stories.

Click to expand...

Sure, there's a distinction in copyright, I'm just saying the mechanics and goal are pretty close to the same.

Anyways, to get back to the topic, while some mainstream stuff can be cute, private stuff doesn't interest me, and anything with minors, innocent as the material might be, when linked from here, creeps me the fuck out.

Wolf said:

Anyways, to get back to the topic, while some mainstream stuff can be cute, private stuff doesn't interest me, and anything with minors, innocent as the material might be, when linked from here, creeps me the fuck out.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Wolf, couldn't agree more.

*************

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, I'm reading it now.....I get it! I won't post mainstream clips anymore, short tickle scenes extracted from films and TV shows, no problem! Didn't realize it as such an outrage! I always thought the Mainstream section was one of the best parts of the TMF, but I guess I was wrong! I'll happily spend the time on You Tube, chasing down people who post music I'm on, instead! lol

Wolf, I know you left at least one positive comment on one of my posts some time ago, a mega thread of vintage clips....i hope you didn't feel conflicted! (I'm also assuming those who take umbrage with that section never home-taped back in the day, making mix tapes for their girlfriends, and copying albums from their friends' collections, not to mention taping movies off of TV and, of course, I'm assuming they never frequent YouTube. I have to say: I admire your restraint!)

The Internet said:

Couldn't agree more, Wolf, couldn't agree more.

*************

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, I'm reading it now.....I get it! I won't post mainstream clips anymore, short tickle scenes extracted from films and TV shows, no problem! Didn't realize it as such an outrage! I always thought the Mainstream section was one of the best parts of the TMF, but I guess I was wrong! I'll happily spend the time on You Tube, chasing down people who post music I'm on, instead! lol

Wolf, I know you left at least one positive comment on one of my posts some time ago, a mega thread of vintage clips....i hope you didn't feel conflicted! (I'm also assuming those who take umbrage with that section never home-taped back in the day, making mix tapes for their girlfriends, and copying albums from their friends' collections, not to mention taping movies off of TV and, of course, I'm assuming they never frequent YouTube. I have to say: I admire your restraint!)

Click to expand...

That's a lot of effort you put into that response.
So much effort, apparently, that you breezed right by the part where I said, "mainstream stuff can be cute". I only have a problem with material that includes minors.
But don't let that stop you.

Wolf said:

That's a lot of effort you put into that response.
So much effort, apparently, that you breezed right by the part where I said, "mainstream stuff can be cute". I only have a problem with material that includes minors.
But don't let that stop you.

Click to expand...

No, I saw that part!

I always put effort in my responses, you know that! I wasn't being facetious, and I wasn't singling out you. i was agreeing with you!

The Internet said:

(I'm also assuming those who take umbrage with that section never home-taped back in the day, making mix tapes for their girlfriends, and copying albums from their friends' collections, not to mention taping movies off of TV and, of course, I'm assuming they never frequent YouTube. I have to say: I admire your restraint!)

Click to expand...

Yeah, the issue isn't copyright infringement, it's uploading the home videos of random strangers on youtube as pornography on a fetish site without the original person's knowledge or consent.

But, you know, thanks for the snark anyway, very useful contribution.

The Internet said:

Didn't realize it as such an outrage!

Click to expand...

At the risk of speaking up when I shouldn't, and unless I'm missing Inception levels of sarcasm-within-sarcasm (entirely possible) -- Internet, I think maybe you should reread this thread? Because I never got the sense that anyone here is criticizing the type of legitimate mainstream content that you're known for. I'm pretty sure that all of us, Wolf included, really enjoy and appreciate the stuff that you do. So, again, unless I'm misunderstanding (entirely possible), it seems like you're taking offense where none is warranted...

Studious_Hustler said:

At the risk of speaking up when I shouldn't, and unless I'm missing Inception levels of sarcasm-within-sarcasm (entirely possible) -- Internet, I think maybe you should reread this thread? Because I never got the sense that anyone here is criticizing the type of legitimate mainstream content that you're known for. I'm pretty sure that all of us, Wolf included, really enjoy and appreciate the stuff that you do. So, again, unless I'm misunderstanding (entirely possible), it seems like you're taking offense where none is warranted...

Click to expand...

That makes 3 of us confused

Studious_Hustler said:

At the risk of speaking up when I shouldn't, and unless I'm missing Inception levels of sarcasm-within-sarcasm (entirely possible) -- Internet, I think maybe you should reread this thread? Because I never got the sense that anyone here is criticizing the type of legitimate mainstream content that you're known for. I'm pretty sure that all of us, Wolf included, really enjoy and appreciate the stuff that you do. So, again, unless I'm misunderstanding (entirely possible), it seems like you're taking offense where none is warranted...

Click to expand...

Not at all, bro! I'm completely in agreement regarding people's home-made clips of them horsing around, and definitely about underage material. Which is the main thrust of this thread, right? This is why I don't post those kinds of clips, of what I call "candid" clips. What do you guys call them? Vanilla? Same thing. I'm not talking youtube channels where they're putting on their own little TV shows, and are catering to fetish to get likes; I'm talking "home movies" for lack of a better term.

No, I'm just responding to the term "copyright violation" that came up in passing here, and also in another thread that's going on somewhere else concurrently (and also from another member who periodically throws that up in my face from time to time). And I think it's legitimate - especially since I myself, and some of my friends have seen income go down due to copyright violations of stuff we've been a part of - to discuss it. This is "ethics of the Mainstream section" thread, right? I definitely am a big contributor to that section, so I'm willing to consider the legality of it. It doesn't matter if someone finds it "cute" or not, it's whether or not it's legal....and ethical.

I know people on this thread are making a distinction between mainstream clips, and candid clips. Maybe they shouldn't. It's all a violation. What I don't like is someone who plays it both ways.....calling out copyright violations when they just want to score points (or be arbitrary) in a thread, but then happily enjoy them when they're posted or, as in one case, actually trade mainstream videotapes back in the day. (not anyone on this thread).

But hey.....continue as you were. If you just want to talk about candid clips on You Tube? My two-cents is I'm against them here on the Forum. When You Tube first started and it was mind-boggling to happen upon them from time to time, and I was younger, I didn't have as much as conviction about it as I do now (although it was never my focus, nor something I actively collected). But as time went by, I grew to believe that stuff should not be archived on a porn site. I've checked individual videos out from time to time, especially if people are going wild about them, but in general I steer clear of them, and I don't archive them.

Why should actors and actresses be any different? Someone I played music with has a Wikifeet page, and when I saw her featured on the mainpage of that site, I felt like beating someone up....and here I am, on this site, doing the same thing, basically.

What you might have thought was snark was simply saying: if a person has a problem with copyright issues, I sure hope they're beyond reproach. And if you're talking about "ethics of the mainstream section" and NOT talking copyright issues.....well, then....you're not talking about "ethics of the mainstream section" in totality.

Quite frankly - this thread should be in the Mainstream section since that's who needs to see and contribute to it. Other than me and Studious, and Jeff...and maybe one other person I missed (sorry!) .. does anybody here actually contribute anything to that section? Or even comment?

chicago said:

I can understand where you're coming from, though i feel like actors have to know that their pictures and vids and such will end up all over the internet. granted probably not here, but i dunno, a lot of us thought your mainstream posts were cool

Click to expand...

well, I'll tell you kiddo, if that's the way you feel, you should really be a little less anonymous about it, but hey...better late than never.

Anyways, sorry to hijack your thread, here OP. I'm against home-made clips being archived here. That's the point of the thread, right?

The Internet said:

well, I'll tell you kiddo, if that's the way you feel, you should really be a little less anonymous about it, but hey...better late than never.

Anyways, sorry to hijack your thread, here OP. I'm against home-made clips being archived here. That's the point of the thread, right?

Click to expand...

lol ok nevermind

hopefulscrambl said:

Yeah, the issue isn't copyright infringement, it's uploading the home videos of random strangers on youtube as pornography on a fetish site without the original person's knowledge or consent.

Click to expand...

The trouble is that same logic also applies to people posting videos, pics, tweets etc of celebrities without their consent. They are also people and the fact that they're famous and all over the internet doesn't really change the basic facts. They may not want to see their movie or TV scenes posted on the TMF. They may not want to be associated with a tickling fetish and have people getting aroused by some scene they appeared in. They may not want their Instagram or Facebook videos to be seen in this context or have people getting excited because they once mentioned they were ticklish in an interview or a Twitter conversation. But it's the same deal that applies to any random person's Youtube video - if it's in the public domain then it can be shared. The thing about home videos is you can keep them private - posting them out there on a public channel is a choice.

Ethical issues should be looked at on an individual basis and people just need to use caution and common sense. I.e. if the video is of a family gathering with kids playing around in it, then it's not appropriate here anyway and people can always flag something like that for moderators to remove it. If on the other hand, it's a couple of adults getting tickled or tickling each other in a public Youtube post then it should be fine - it doesn't really matter whether they have ten followers or ten million.

turtleboy said:

The trouble is that same logic also applies to people posting videos, pics, tweets etc of celebrities without their consent.

Click to expand...

...not really.

Things may vary by jurisdiction and I have no idea what it's like in the UK or elsewhere, but in terms of Hollywood it's kind of weird. Actors are both considered "public figures", which means by their very existence they get less privacy protection than us regular shmoes, but on the other hand they have rights over their image and can legally dictate who gets to use it. (As proof of the latter, I once worked on a video game based on a movie where we had the rights to the lesser actors in the film, but not the main star. So we had to make the star's character in the game look like the character in the movie *without* making it look like the actor. I have no idea how our artist pulled it off.)

That said, usually all rights to media from a particular work - film or television - doesn't belong to the actor, but to the studio. So when you post that oh-so-awesome(/s) Natalie Portman belly clip from Attack of the Clones, you're not violating Nat's rights, you're violating LucasFilm's. Nat doesn't get a say in it.

*THAT* said, the main issue I take with all of this is that people use a particular actor's participation in a specific work as carte blanche to then creep on/harass that actor, which is definitely a side effect of people having their clips posted here. A huge example of this is all of those foot clips from various home shopping networks; a lot of the women who've appeared on said networks have said in the past that they won't do shoe/foot segments anymore because of all the creepy messages they get from people here. And while just doing the segments themselves won't stop creepy viewers of said networks, throwing the clips to the wolves here surely multiplies that by tenfold.

It's funny people mention VCRs and such. The home recording industry was, in fact, subject to various lawsuits and legal action over taping of music and video by private consumers. Said actions never went anywhere in court, IIRC.

Phineas said:

That said, usually all rights to media from a particular work - film or television - doesn't belong to the actor, but to the studio. So when you post that oh-so-awesome(/s) Natalie Portman belly clip from Attack of the Clones, you're not violating Nat's rights, you're violating LucasFilm's. Nat doesn't get a say in it.

Click to expand...

Yes I do understand that. My point is that when something is published in the public domain it is out there - people don't question posting content of celebrities on here but sometimes take a different view when it comes to 'real' people. In reality, if you can take a clip of a celeb being tickled out of context and post it on here then you can do the same with any random person who decides to post videos of themselves on a public Youtube channel. The difference with posting celebrity content from movies or TV shows is that it generally is protected by copyright as you pointed out.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating to ban celebrity clips or any other mainstream content for that matter. Simply pointing out that we shouldn't be banning one without the other. The logical thing is to moderate any inappropriate, illegal or distasteful content - which is what happens anyway.

Hey Phineas: I never said the rights to a clip belong to an actor, they belong to the studio that owns the work it's a part of. But this is called "ethics" of the mainstream section, and so my feeling (now) is that an actor signed up to do a part in a movie, not to be taken out of context and put on a porn site. Two separate issues. I actually got asked to audition - and was cast - in two low-budget movies that ended up losing their funding over the last few years. I don't know how I would feel if someone took out one of my scenes and put it up on a jerk-off board, or if something personal about me was revealed in an interview or something similar.

Regarding the home taping comment I made, all I meant was the hypocrisy of someone throwing it in my face over and over about copyright violation (as one member has over the years whenever I would call out stuff such as people who post feet-and-face pics of unsuspecting "civilians"). It's practically an unenforceable law and look no further than YouTube....or peoples' old cassette tape/video tape/DVR-R collections for the proof!

Anyways, the main thrust of this thread is not about movies and TV shows, it's about people's home videos and, as I said, I have generally made it a point to not upload and archive those clips to the Forum, even as I did upload tons and tons of clips from movies, TV, and stuff posted on YouTube channels that were basically the equivalent of a TV show.

The Internet said:

Hey Phineas: I never said the rights to a clip belong to an actor, they belong to the studio that owns the work it's a part of.

Click to expand...

No need to get defensive, dude. I was responding to the line I quoted from turtleboy's post. No more, no less. He clarified his statement, and I agree with his point. I just didn't see a need to waste any more calories and/or bandwidth mindlessly thumbing him up.

Fact is - and I guess I have to point this out, now - the bulk of the people here wouldn't know the proper meaning of copyright if it bit them in the ass, so every now and then I figure it's a good idea for a reality check. This probably says more about me than it does about them, at this point as I should probably just leave well enough alone.

My ultimate meta-point was that this shit is complex and no one understands it, not even lawyers and courts. I watched a video on the YouTubes by Legal Eagle a while ago where he delves into the whole concept of fair use and how it's insanely difficult to define, even by the people who devote their lives to studying this shit.

All of that said, I've always been of the notion that celebrities should get the same respect and protection of their privacy that normal people do, but I appear to be in the minority in that regard. I, too, don't feel that starring in a movie or being paid to endorse a PediEgg should open you up to being perved on by the darkest corners of the Internet.

Honestly, I think we shouldn't traffic in this stuff at all. Mainstream clips, magazine scans... fuck "the community". It's all one massive copyright violation and we look like hypcrites when we turn a blind eye to half of it and get our panties in a bunch over the other. But, as Kermit the Frog would say while sipping on his tea, that's none of my business.

Phineas said:

No need to get defensive, dude. .

Click to expand...

Wasn't getting defensive at all. It wasn't a snotty "hey Phineas", it was a greeting. I could have said "Yo, Phineas", "Hi Phineas" or "What's up, Phineas". "Dude." lol. I was clarifying my point, which is what got you on the subject in the first place. And in the end, we said the same thing. Later, crocogator.

Some people get off of listening to the president talk. We can't expect him to avoid talking because someone out there might get turned on by it. Some people get turned on by watching others clean (clean with me videos are popular), should they stop for fear that someone might take things a way they don't want?

It sounds like you are trying to control the viewer. I'm not sure that scales.

hopefulscrambl said:

Well, this is gonna get me yelled at in my first few weeks, but still. It seems an important question.

Some of you may have seen the discussions in the Mainstream and Renfaire chats about selling youtube rips and uploading renfaire videos to pornhub, but this seems to expose a more basic point- is it ethical to take people's personal videos and upload them as porn? Because I'm starting to get more and more creeped out by it the more I think about it.

Now, movies and tv scenes are probably fine, public arena enough to use as will. Maybe those clickbait tickle challenges too, it kind of depends on the details.
But I'm talking about videos of parties, or of families, or of friends hanging out, or other mundane things. Personal moments. The Paige's Tickle Machine sparked the whole discussion about selling it, but it seems there's a second discussion about the ethics of uploading a video a man took of himself, playing with seemingly his wife and daughters, to a fetish site for people to wank to without his or their permission.

Because make no mistake, this is a sexual forum, and this is being shared as pornography. I can see 3 links to porn on my screen right now, and we have a no underage rule. There's no deniability that this is for sexual reasons, and in the same way it would be incredibly awful to share stranger's underwear pics without their knowledge or permission, it seems equally bad, in this context, to share videos of people tickling each other in the same way. And while they're not the majority they were, there are still a lot of them.

Just, like, imagine you have a video of you and a partner giving each other a balloon. It's cute, it's sweet, and you probably don't think of it afterwards. Then you find in on a site of balloon fetishists, who are jerking off over it and posting sexual comments about it. Even though you probably don't find balloons sexual, it's still creepy right? Still violating? We get upset about people taking down their videos because of traffic from a fetish community but then again, wouldn't you take down a video of you horsing about with your friends when you found most of your visitors were jerking off to it?

Same principle here. I realize this is something that's on the site enough to get three subforums, but the more I think about, the more it becomes clearly really creepy. I don't know what to do about this. But I think we need to bring it up.

Click to expand...