You need not be astonished, because I wasn't suggesting the situations were "comparable,"
Fair enough.
I was using them to illustrate a principle -- which is that the reason people watch clips is completely subjective, and a given genre of clip can be watched for different reasons.
The reasons for watching don't enter it, here. It's what a clip was specifically made for. A person who posts a video on the Internet usually can't control who watches it and for what reasons. If the person did it with innocent intentions, then it can't be helped, and it's perfectly ok, at least as far as the poster is concenred. But a producer who sets up a set of stocks for the purpose of filming some unknowing women to sell the footage as fetish videos is entirely in control of of what's going on and knows what the videos are for. That's what make it totally different from the examples you provided.
I was saying that the standard you applied, that a clip with one *purpose* should one set of distribution rules, and clips with a different purpose should have other distribution rules, doesn't make sense.
Of course it makes sense. We're not talking unknown, generic reasons, here. We're talking videos meant for a fetish audience. While most people would be upset to know that an innocent tickling video of them was being enjoyed by ticklephiles, that would be nothing compared to knowing that it was done on purpose, and to make money to boot. Is it hard to see the difference between a situation in which the intentions are innocent and those who in which it clearly goes against what the "models" would want? You need to stop thinking of the viewers and start thinking of the people responsible for making the videos.
I'm saying the only thing that matters is what's in the clip itself, not the psychology of why the viewer's watching.
I totally disagree with you. And I'm talking about the ethics of the producer, not of the viewer. In my opinion, that's what really matters.
Is there nudity in the clip? Is there a sex act? Are there verbal obscenities? Is someone portrayed as endorsing a product?
Irrelevant to our discussion. We're still talking about the production of videos meant for sexual gratification. While I agree that it's not actual pornography (and it's a good thing because otherwise I'd close shop immediately), it's still wrong to do it without the models' explicit permission.
Besides which, it's pretty clear that there are people out there who have a big problem with anything remotely related to the adult industry, even if it doesn't involve any nudity. A few years ago my PayPal account, which I was using to sell videos, was closed without warning, the reasons provided being that the content of my site was inappropriate. Did I agree with them? Hell no. Can one still potentially offend people who can get one in trouble? You bet. But my situation isn't really the same as the renfaire thing, since I do get the informed written permission of my models. They also get paid, which is only fair, since I make money from it myself.
If I take a picture of a crowded beach with girls in bikinis, would you say I need releases from everyone to distribute it?
If you intend to sell the pictures to an adult audience? Absolutely.
After all, some people may find sexual gratification in looking at it, right? Other people may just be planning a beach vacation. It's not a bad analogy... just like the Renfaire, my bikini girl shot is in a public place, there's no nudity, people are having fun, and viewers might get turned on. (Some Renfaires are held in public parks, some aren't.) Should I have to explain to girls on the beach exactly what some men might be doing when looking at their pictures?
Why do you keep insisting that it's the viewer that matters? What people find arousing can't be helpled. They might be turned on by a variety of things that aren't openly sexual in nature, or at all. We can't control that. But we can control what footage is created and sold, and why. A producer creates such footage because he knows fetishists will like it, and he promotes it among the appropriate community. He knows full well that he's dealing with a group that finds it arousing.
Finally to your point about whether it's just wrong.... And you make a good point here too, by the way.
Thank you. Frankly, I think it's the most important thing. Doing things legally, sure, as much as possible. But the law isn't always right. Something that's legal can still be very, very wrong.
I believe the videographer *does* have a moral obligation to ask the woman at the end, "Do you mind if I put this clip on the web?"
I'm pretty sure most would probably say "yes, fine." After all, they do seem to be having a good time. She might send the same YouTube link to her best friend because she thinks it's funny.
But I don't agree that the videographer needs to explain the psychologies of why different people might want to watch it. (After all, the event people might use a few seconds in a montage of other scenes to advertise next year's RenFaire. Would it then be okay to distribute because it avoids your standard of "sexual gratification" purposes?)
So my verdict is: Ask permission? Yes. Would they give it? Yes. Explain why people might watch? No more need to do this than if you took a bikini shot.
First, I don't think that many women would actually say yes even if they were simply asked if the clips could be posted online. Why would they agree to have their image posted in public by a stranger, whatever the reason? Wouldn't they wonder why, especially if the producer is to make money with the footage? It can't be just for fun. At least, one would have to be very naive not to be a little suspicious and ask for more details. And we're talking about a tickling-in-stocks scenario, not just general posing for the camcorder. Why would anyone want a total stranger to post videos of them in a somewhat embarrassing situation?
Second, while normally the person making the videos wouldn't have to explain in details the specific reason why people watch them, I believe he does have a responsibility to explain why he's making them. Since he's doing it to make money by selling the footage to fetishists, well, it comes down to pretty much the same thing as explaining why customers will be buying the footage. It's for sexual gratification pure and simple. I don't kid myself about that issue when it comes to my own videos. And if a producer does explain this to random women who just happen to want to give the stocks a try for fun, as I think he really should if he's honest in any way, I seriously doubt many people would give their permission. And once someone who takes offense to this (with good reason) learns that the producer is basically running a fetish business on the renfaire grounds, then the producer has some serious explaining to the authorities to do, and at the very best he gets banned from the renfaire. So in addition to being wrong, it can get someone into a lot of trouble. Simply not worth it.
I'm very sorry you don't understand why a producer has the responsibility to explain the project in detail and get the models' informed permission after telling them exactly what the videos are for. Because if you did, you'd see right away why such a project wouldn't be possible, or at least incredibly risky and pretty much bound to failure. It seems you simply don't get the implications of such an endeavor. And that's something that I find a bit scary. The thought of producers out there acting dishonestly and unprofessionally with the models.... well, I just hope that no one ever thinks that I'm like them, because being totally transparent and respectful with the models is one of the most important things to me. It should be for all producers.
