Camming to be featured in Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On

[Shia]

I don't think that's true. This is a constant debate on Youtube. As long as the content is transformative, you can make money on it. And obviously, this is transformative, as the goal is to educate, not get people off.

Yeah I honestly and not 100% sure. I am just going off their twitter threads about what they found. They have reached out to the company and are handling it. I think more than anything they just want to make a point of consent being vital in this industry, regardless of what the actual content shows. Showing anyone in this industry without his/her consent can have huge consequences. I.e. being outed, which could in turn jeopardize personal relationships and even somebodies career.

 

[JoleneBrody]

You can do a lot of disrespectful shitty things legally. Even if it does turnout to be legal, it's still incredibly disappointing especially considering the premise of the series.

 

[EspiKvlt]

You can do a lot of disrespectful shitty things legally. Even if it does turnout to be legal, it's still incredibly disappointing especially considering the premise of the series.

Yeah, I 10000% agree. That's why I tried to make it super clear that while I don't think anyone can actually sue them over it or anything, I still hate them for doing that.

 

[JickyJuly]

There's probably a reason that they took footage from Periscope and not an actual camsite. I wonder if that covers them legally or if they're just counting on an individual model not having the resources to do anything about it? Did they have to pay Periscope to use it?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Episode 6, 3 minuets and about 10 seconds in. It depends as far as fair use goes. They cannot be making a profit on it for it to be fair use. The girls are looking into it though and figuring out what they can do.

Thank you for the info.

That was about 5 seconds of them on Periscope. I had no idea they were cam models because they weren't on a camsite. They were not naked and could have been any one of tens of thousands of teens/young woman shaking their booty on Periscope every day. So I don't think the girls were outed as cam models or harmed in any way.

The Fair use doctrine explicitly allows people to reproduced a limited portion of copyrighted material for purposes of commentary or criticism. Profit has no bearing on fair use.
That episode wasn't even about sex work at all, it was about Marina Lonina, a barely 18-year-old recent Russian immigrant, who live streamed her friend's rape, on Periscope. Marina justification was that lots of kids streamed sexy and violent things on Periscope. So in the context where 90% of American have never seen Periscope, it makes sense to present a collage of images of what happens on Periscope. I think the camgirls are over reacting on twitter.

 

[JickyJuly]

Is Periscope an anonymous thing? I Googled. Felt confused. Someone enlighten an old broad. Unless Periscope is anonymous and Hot Girls Wanted had no way of informing people their footage was used, I don't think it's an overreaction. Just because they can use something doesn't mean they shouldn't be courteous. Give a heads up so they can warn their Dad or Grandma not Netflix up something they don't need to see. I'm out to my family, but I don't want them to have visuals to plug into it even clothed.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Is Periscope an anonymous thing? I Googled. Felt confused. Someone enlighten an old broad. Unless Periscope is anonymous and Hot Girls Wanted had no way of informing people their footage was used, I don't think it's an overreaction. Just because they can use something doesn't mean they shouldn't be courteous. Give a heads up so they can warn their Dad or Grandma not Netflix up something they don't need to see. I'm out to my family, but I don't want them to have visuals to plug into it even clothed.

No, it isn't anonymous. It's just like a streaming thing where you watch people live on your phone.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

No, it isn't anonymous. It's just like a streaming thing where you watch people live on your phone.

Well, it's anonymous in the sense that you can use a screen name and while there may be a way of contact the person streaming after the fact, I haven't figured it out. Forcing people to contact everyone that appears in a video you distribute no matter how incidental would destroy social media as we know it. That video you posted where folks were making in the background, better get their permission first, even if you don't know who they are.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Well, it's anonymous in the sense that you can use a screen name and while there may be a way of contact the person streaming after the fact, I haven't figured it out.

Oh, everyone I've watched on there was super popular, so I guess that's why I just assumed it wasn't.

(As in: it shows their screen name but obviously I know who that screen name belongs to because they're a popular person).

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I was just reading about this on twitter, but it was primarily concerned with footage showing Streamate models on the front page of that site. The question I have is, are we all so sure the documentary didn't have permission to use the footage? Because, the reality is I don't believe they needed to ask any model at all. And that applies for both Periscope and Streamate.

It's in the model agreement at Streamate, they own all content uploaded to their site. They can do anything they want with it. Periscope has a very similar stipulation in their user agreement.

So if the documentary simply asked Twitter (who owns Periscope) and Streamate if they could use content, that's all they needed to do. I'm not saying they have, or it still isn't scummy. But I see a lot of models jumping to the wrong conclusions. Namely that they had to be consulted prior to having any of that content used for the documentary. Twitter and Streamate can give away anything you send to them without consulting the model.


From Periscope terms of service.

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

 

[AerynShade]

Even if it's legal it is still EXPLOITATIVE AS FUCK.

 

[JickyJuly]

Even if it's legal it is still EXPLOITATIVE AS FUCK.

I guess they prove their narrative about the poor sex worker girls.
Their response to the girl who contacted them about having appeared in the footage was patronizing as heck as well.
So, if their goal was to raise awareness and save all the unclothed babygirls of the internet, they've gone about it strangely.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Even if it's legal it is still EXPLOITATIVE AS FUCK.

Why? The Hot Girls Want producers had no way of knowing that girls on Periscope were sex workers, they were just cute girls doing sexy stuff on Periscope.

I see lots of pictures posted on social media by camgirls on their professional account, with people in the background. Maybe these people don't want to have their images associated with sex workers.
But it would be silly for people to assume that every person in a sex workers social media picture of her at Starbuck's is a sex worker. This is true even if by a coincidence some actually were and could claim they were outed.

 

[JickyJuly]

I doubt they didn't know the girls were sex workers. It would be really irresponsible to put just anyone out there in your film. If they were minors that would be dangerous to their whole project.

 

[Booty_4U]

Forcing people to contact everyone that appears in a video you distribute no matter how incidental would destroy social media as we know it. That video you posted where folks were making in the background, better get their permission first, even if you don't know who they are.

LMAO asking permission to post someone's likeness in a "documentary" that will receive millions of views, isn't going to "destroy social media as we know it"!

Why? The Hot Girls Want producers had no way of knowing that girls on Periscope were sex workers, they were just cute girls doing sexy stuff on Periscope.

I see lots of pictures posted on social media by camgirls on their professional account, with people in the background. Maybe these people don't want to have their images associated with sex workers.
But it would be silly for people to assume that every person in a sex workers social media picture of her at Starbuck's is a sex worker. This is true even if by a coincidence some actually were and could claim they were outed.

This "documentary" series will get way more views than any sex worker's social media pics ever will. If Hot Girls Wanted don't know how to contact the person in the video, just don't use that video then? Re-film? Find willing participants? Pay those participants? Etc??? It's not rocket surgery. And I doubt anyone forced Hot Girls Wanted to use the video footage of models on Periscope...

 

[Shia]

I think the camgirls are over reacting on twitter.

You may disagree, however the only person who can react appropriately is the one who is being shown on TV without consent. You consider it an overreaction, however you aren't feeling what those girls are feeling.

Imagine that somehow your face was shown in the documentary "outing" you as a customer of a model being shown..actually very similar situation to the scandal that was AriaNina and ShayCarl..being "outed" without your knowledge or consent can be extremely harmful to anyone's daily life.

 

[JickyJuly]

"outing" you as a customer of a model being shown

Does the agreement for members using cams include that it is property of the site?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

This "documentary" series will get way more views than any sex worker's social media pics ever will. If Hot Girls Wanted don't know how to contact the person in the video, just don't use that video then? Re-film? Find willing participants? Pay those participants? Etc??? It's not rocket surgery. And I doubt anyone forced Hot Girls Wanted to use the video footage of models on Periscope...

First of all, I think you vastly over estimate how popular Hot Girls Wanted was or the series is likely to be. The movie had under 900 ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and 400 on review on netflix and I don't think it was seen in the theaters outside of the Sundance festival. Bailey Rayne has more than 150K twitter followers which is why I suspect she is in the series. But it is really not relevant.

I think before everybody gets all worked up, If you have Netflix you should take the 3 minutes to see the collage of social media images the series used including the 8 seconds the girls were on. I counted more than 150 people in all at least 50 who were minors.

If after watching it you still think it is outrageous what the producers did I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[SaffronBurke]

The movie had under 900 ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and 400 on review on netflix

But how many people watch things on Netflix and don't review a thing? Tons. The number of reviews doesn't come close to accurately reflecting how many people are watching something. For example, I've used Netflix in place of cable since 2009, and have never reviewed a thing.

 

[Gen]

Library camgirl busted

I was thinking about this post (^^ linked above), and similar from members I've seen in the past. I can definitely understand not wanting to be filmed and broadcast somewhere, in both situations.

Regardless, I don't think its overreacting to say they don't want to be included without their permission. If someone put me in a pro-Trump or anti-abortion or whatever video, I'd be pissed, even if legally they could use the footage.

 

[JickyJuly]

Is Hot Girls Wanted based on this lady's book? Her book says 2015? Judging by the list of her other titles, I doubt anything she's involved in should be called a documentary. In case you don't want to click the link, her other titles include gems like How Much Does a Pole Dancer Earn and 7 Signs Your Man Is Cheating On You and my favorite Men Who Masturbate and the Women Who Love Them.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6524871.Eve_Hanson

Also, I was looking at IMDB. The movie lists a lot of companies they received media from. The series only list "Hussie Productions". I wonder if that is something that Streamate owns? This is a good time to remind new girls that whatever you're streaming is no longer your property. I wonder how it would work if they were to use a clip site clip though? We retain ownership on C4S.

 

[Influenced]

But I see a lot of models jumping to the wrong conclusions. Namely that they had to be consulted prior to having any of that content used for the documentary. Twitter and Streamate can give away anything you send to them without consulting the model.

Pretty sure they had more than a handful of lawyers go through everything (and I mean everything) to cover themselves legally on every end of the spectrum. Not saying what was done is "right" per say, but they did it, so they obviously do not care and are not worried about any backlash from it. If anything, negative publicity on this will just be turned into more good publicity for them and draw even more attention (viewers etc) to their film and everyone in it.

 

[Alex_M_21]

Literally just read this whole thread. Some extremely interesting debates and very intelligent comments from both sides of each argument.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

ou may disagree, however the only person who can react appropriately is the one who is being shown on TV without consent. You consider it an overreaction, however you aren't feeling what those girls are feeling.

Imagine that somehow your face was shown in the documentary "outing" you as a customer of a model being shown..actually very similar situation to the scandal that was AriaNina and ShayCarl..being "outed" without your knowledge or consent can be extremely harmful to anyone's daily life.

I can't say I live in fear of being outed as a single old dude that watches porn, especially since it's girls and not underage boys. What Aria did was post PRIVATE messages, broadcasting on Periscope is the very definition of a public act, since it open to anyone including kids. I think by now everyone understands if you do something publically it can go viral. I agree with your larger point that this outing can be very harmful, and more so to a young woman than men. So I get the reaction, especially since the original film was widely disliked by many.

It's a pity we seem to place a premium on feeling more than facts. The facts are the girls weren't outed by any reasonable definition. We saw them for 8 seconds, on a non-porn application. The clip itself was PG, and if that is the most scandalous thing my teenage nieces do on social media in the next few years, I'll be a happy man.

We also saw close thousand other people faces among the fast edits that they used to make one of the points of the series. Young people live on social media. Social media has transformed the porn business and blurred the lines of what sex work means.

Ironically, the episode they appear in was the one episode which had nothing do with the sex work. It was completely about rape and social media, and the whole episode could have appeared on any broadcast or cable news magazine show without any changes. My bet is the girl's reaction would have been very different they had their 8 seconds of fame on 20/20.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Also, I was looking at IMDB. The movie lists a lot of companies they received media from. The series only list "Hussie Productions". I wonder if that is something that Streamate owns? This is a good time to remind new girls that whatever you're streaming is no longer your property. I wonder how it would work if they were to use a clip site clip though? We retain ownership on C4S.

I'm pretty sure that Hussie Productions, is the porn production company the Bailey Rayne works for/with as a recruiter in episode 3. She makes $500 or $1,000 for each girl she recruits, and she definitely earns her money. I'm pretty sure Hussie isn't owned by SM, but of course they probably all will eventually be owned by MindGeek

 

[Gen]

I can't say I live in fear of being outed as a single old dude that watches porn, especially since it's girls and not underage boys. What Aria did was post PRIVATE messages, broadcasting on Periscope is the very definition of a public act, since it open to anyone including kids. I think by now everyone understands if you do something publically it can go viral. I agree with your larger point that this outing can be very harmful, and more so to a young woman than men. So I get the reaction, especially since the original film was widely disliked by many.

It's a pity we seem to place a premium on feeling more than facts. The facts are the girls weren't outed by any reasonable definition. We saw them for 8 seconds, on a non-porn application. The clip itself was PG, and if that is the most scandalous thing my teenage nieces do on social media in the next few years, I'll be a happy man.

We also saw close thousand other people faces among the fast edits that they used to make one of the points of the series. Young people live on social media. Social media has transformed the porn business and blurred the lines of what sex work means.

Ironically, the episode they appear in was the one episode which had nothing do with the sex work. It was completely about rape and social media, and the whole episode could have appeared on any broadcast or cable news magazine show without any changes. My bet is the girl's reaction would have been very different they had their 8 seconds of fame on 20/20.

It is interesting that we use public platforms that aren't geared towards sex work specifically to advertise, such as Periscope/Tumblr/Twitter, in an attempt to gain customers and be seen by more potential buyers but *also* don't want to be seen by certain people. I freaked out when a comic book creator that I love followed and retweeted my cam Twitter account, because I have irl friends who follow him, and I didn't want them to see. But obviously I had that account specifically to try to be seen. So it was a weird collision of feelings for me.

I liken it to Amber's constant reminders that the models only section isn't completely private and can be infiltrated or screencapped by douchebags who would share our info. It is gross and rude of those people to do that but I also would be unwise to share anything that would devastate me if it were to become public knowledge.

(I'm speaking more to the broader topic than just specifically this documentary situation; this just prompted the train of thought.)

 

[AudriTwo]

Thank you for the info.

That was about 5 seconds of them on Periscope. I had no idea they were cam models because they weren't on a camsite. They were not naked and could have been any one of tens of thousands of teens/young woman shaking their booty on Periscope every day. So I don't think the girls were outed as cam models or harmed in any way.

The Fair use doctrine explicitly allows people to reproduced a limited portion of copyrighted material for purposes of commentary or criticism. Profit has no bearing on fair use.
That episode wasn't even about sex work at all, it was about Marina Lonina, a barely 18-year-old recent Russian immigrant, who live streamed her friend's rape, on Periscope. Marina justification was that lots of kids streamed sexy and violent things on Periscope. So in the context where 90% of American have never seen Periscope, it makes sense to present a collage of images of what happens on Periscope. I think the camgirls are over reacting on twitter.

I think once you experience being socially outcasted from some jackass's ill regard, you will not think we are over reacting.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I think once you experience being socially outcasted from what some jackass, you will not think we are over reacting.

Have you watched it yet?

 

[AudriTwo]

Have you watched it yet?

yep! i don't think girls are over reacting for being shown on this documentary without their consent. i watched it, thought it was bullshit.

 

[JickyJuly]

I don't think the problem is just being outed. Like @GenXoxo said, we all know that companies retain property and anyone can be outed. That's just reality. It's more about knowing where Rashida Jones is coming from with this. She's the epitome of pearl clutching, expensive coffee, 38 college credits, taking pole dancing classes for irony but gosh I hope my boyfriend likes it "feminism". Even when she got called out for her stop being whores crap, she didn't apologize. She explained again reaffirming that she thinks women who capitalize on their sexuality are either greedy or victims. There's no way that they accidentally chose camgirls for those few seconds. They were chosen because they are vulnerable to this kind of use. They were chosen to exemplify greed and victimization. No one has to go along with that.