minx

Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 29/03/24 09:12:52 GMT

Translate page FROM gb -> TO de fr it nl es pt jp

Translate page TO gb <- FROM de fr it nl es pt jp

Wetlook-Online
Wetlook-Online

Message # 2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1

Subject: Hello Re: BBFC

Date: Wed 26/03/03 13:41:00 GMT

Name: MK us

Email: wamtec@compuserve.com

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

Previous Reply
Next New Message
Active List Archive

Wetlook-Online
Yikes...6 months in prison per video title released. I had better stay out of the UK then, cos then I would be in jail for the next 1500 years.

 

It is good to know that they have got their priorities right...and that somebody who produces 20 unrated videos will do more jail time that somebody who commits a murder...ha ha....and therefore a mass video producer is deemed as more of a threat to UK society than a mass murderer is....

 

Just one more reason why I left the UK 20 years ago....but actually the BBFC had little to do with it...I just preferred the warmer climates in Asia and Florida.

 

mk

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1) Hello BBFC

By crazygirlsbrian - webmaster@crazygirlsinternational.com ar Wed 26/03/03 10:15:04 GMT

Website:


The BBFC did not adapt to include videos etc, they were given that role in the Video Recordings Act 1984, for which anyone selling a video WITHIN the UK (that is from the UK to the UK) can be fined up to £20,000 per video and face 6 months in prison PER VIDEO.

 

And streaming on the Internet, or video clips on the Internet come under the same law, regardless of where it is hosted, if the person responsible is in the UK and it can be seen in the UK  (A court case about 2 years ago decided that the act appied in that situation)

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1) Hello Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBFC

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com us Wed 26/03/03 09:30:41 GMT

Website: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/


Not 20 years ago...the BBFC came into existance over 90 years ago. It was created in 1912...the history is on their website...

 

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

 

I know what you mean though...they started to put their foot down a lot more in the 1980s.. when certain horror films started being released ...but they seemed to lose all sense of what was "reality" (i.e. nasty snuff films) and what was "fantasy"...cos they were even deeming the spoof film NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET as a video-nasty...and that stupid and laughable "Chuckey" doll comedy horror films as being a video-nasties too.

 

You are right though....once you have a 90 year old bureacracy that employs a lot of people...it is very hard to eliminate it.....cos then people would be unemployed.

 

What I don't get is...most of the BBFC laws were written in the 1920's and only talked about "movies" and "recordings" and nobody could envisage back then that people would be able to make their own movies at home and or such media systems as vhs or dvd....but somehow the BBFC have managed to adapt their 70 year old laws to now include VHS tapes and DVDs...so if they can take poetic licence in applying the word "recordings" to new media delivery systems like DVD and VHS...then how come they do not apply their laws on "recordings" to webstreams too...cos very few webstreams are "live cams"... most webstreams are pre-recordings too.

 

Go figure.

 

My assessment is...they would love to find a way to tax or certify uk based web streams too...only that they have not been able to find a way to do it....cos the genie is out of the bottle now. The internet is a borderless society where few laws are enforceable.

 

MK

 

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1) Hello Re: Re: Re: Re: BBFC

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com gb Wed 26/03/03 07:50:17 GMT

Website:


In fairness I think the BBFC came into existence due to the amount of "video nasties" that started flooding into the country about 20 years ago.

 

However like all "good ideas" they are soon hijacked by people who devise a way to make money from them or alternatively a self serving bureacracy develops.

 

So in order to protect jobs and status, the organisation has lost sight of the original intention, to protect people from material of extreme violence and depravity, and now concentrates it attention on "soft targets" such as people who make movies of such things as shoe and foot fetish activities and other such non- offensive subjects.

 

It's the same old story, give some people a little power and before you know it they want to run your lives for you.

 

I don't think of it so much as double tax, really you are just paying people to do a job that has little value, except to themselves.

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1) Hello Re: Re: Re: BBFC

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com gb Wed 26/03/03 07:23:44 GMT

Website:


This then explains why it makes more sense for UK producers to release their materials using web based delivery methods such a video streams and membership sites, as opposed to releasing media on tape, cd or dvd.

 

I am surprized that the BBFC has not tried to find some way to "tax" this loophole (cos that is what BBFC really is all about..taxing the producer...not censoring him) and all uk based media streams, and allows this loophole to exist....cos the media a producer releases as a webstream...is no different to that content being recorded on tape or disk. The Clinton administration was trying to find ways to "tax the internet" in the 1990's....but they gave up on that idea. You can already see what happened when they tried to outlaw gaming and gambling sites in the USA...all those companies did...was to move the hosting of their servers and  sites to the Caribbean and base their websites out of places like the Dominican Republic instead. So even if the BBFC tried to outlaw or tax webstreams eminating (unrated) from the UK...the media producers would simply move their webhosting operations offshore to servers located in other countries.

 

BBFC and other entities who try to tax people unfairly will never win. Instead of gaining revenue, they just will just lose it cos people will simply move or find other ways to avoid it. The BBFC fee is "double taxation" in my opinion anyway...i.e. any income a video producer makes from selling tapes, is already taxed as personal or business income anyway....so taxing the video producer again is double taxation. In my case, I pay taxes on all my video income to the U.S Government as business income...and even though I am a Brit, the UK government don't collect a dime from me, cos I moved my business outside of the country due to their archaic BBFC laws that would render my video production business unviable in the UK. So...authorities who over-tax or double tax people...don't collect more revenue...they lose it. Thats a proven economic theory in most countries..i.e. when you raise taxes...revenue does not increase...revenue gets wings and flies to other countries.

 

MK

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2.1) Hello Re: Re: BBFC

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com gb Wed 26/03/03 05:49:32 GMT

Website:


see the above post, training and educational movies are exempt.

However if you try to beat the system by releasing a spurious educational movie, you have your equipment confiscated pending investigation.

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1.2) Question Re: BBFC

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net ca Wed 26/03/03 05:41:19 GMT

Website:


Taking this thread to its logical (or not so logical) extreme...

 

Does that mean that a producer of completely benign instructional videos (let's say about carpentry or computers) would have to pay for a BBFC certificate in order to sell such material legally in the UK? Is all material assumed to be "unsuitable for general viewing" in the UK until proved (or approved) otherwise by the censors?

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1.1) Hello Re: Re: Re: don't need model release in UK

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com us Wed 26/03/03 04:34:13 GMT

Website:


Wow.....very interesting discussion here. I was not aware that the UK laws on signing model releases were so different to the laws we have to abide by in the USA. So...it seems that the UK scene is mostly about not misrepresenting or mischaracterizing or defaming somebody. That makes sense, cos the libel laws in the UK are totally different to the libel laws in the USA (i.e. it is very difficult to sue somebody for libel in the USA...cos the 1st amendment protects the right to free speech...and so the tabloids can say whatever they like about somebody ....e.g. that Tom Cruise is gay...and get away with it....but if you libel or defame somebody in the UK...e.g. the claims that Elton John likes young schoolboys...then you end up in court.

 

Model releases in the USA go way beyond the UK already...i.e. a mere model release is not all you need...thanks to the famous Tracie Lords case...you must keep a copy of a photo ID that proves their age as well (passport or drivers licence)...and if you are in the x rated sex industry, it is a requirement for adult models to have aids testing every 6 months and video producers who make hardcore films have also got to keep current copies of the model's latest aids certificatoon results on file as well.

 

But this is all "swings and roundabouts" ....cos while it may seem more bureacratic regarding model releases in the USA, we have one HUGE advantage over UK based producers...i.e. that same 1st amendment that permits freedom of speech without government interference...is the very same thing that allows all u.s. based producers total FREEDOM to produce and release videos UNIMPEDED...i.e. to release them "unrated".

 

Thats not the case in the UK...no video producer can legally released any video in the UK....unless they submit it to the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) first...and to obtain a BBFC certificate. In essence...all amateur videos made in the USA are not required to be reviewed or licensed by the government...i.e. unrated videos are legal. In the UK...unless a video has a ratings certificate issued by the BBFC..it is defacto an illegal/underground video...so most of the UK amateur video scene operates on an underground or illegal basis. Even custom videos are not exempt. Thats why I left the UK and am based in Florida...cos WAMTEC could never legally operate in the UK (nor could sites like Souther Charms offering custom videos operate in the UK).

 

The BBFC problem in the UK is a real dilemma...cos most producer would love to be able to get their work certified...but the archaic BBFC laws are really nothing to to about censorship any more...it is merely an exorbitant rip off and a TAX that is levied on all new video productions. Very few producers sell enough tapes...to be able to afford to spend around 1000 pounds or $1500 to apply for a BBFC certificate anyway.

 

So...I can put up with the more cumbersome u.s. laws on model releases...cos this is the lesser of 2 evils...i.e. I don't have to submit my tapes to the government and pay an outrageous tax before I release them. This is why I left the UK...and probably why folks like Brian are enjoying life so much in Spain and Argentina...where it is easier to run a video production business than back in the UK.

 

MK

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1) Hello Re: Re: don't need model release in UK

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com gb Wed 26/03/03 02:24:16 GMT

Website:


No injunction would be maintained if someone had knowingly posed for the pictures, irrespective of how famous they were.

 

Injunctions will only be maintained if you have possibly stalked the person or the images defame them in some way.

 

In fact the biggest problem is not the pictures, but how you caption them. If you say, "this is Miss X, a prostitute" then you're in deep shit- if you just say "this is Miss X" then the likelihood of any problems are so remote that they're not worth bothering with.

 

Otherwise loads of people would be taking out injunctions against the press to prevent them publishing images of themselves. Most legal problems are to do with the words that go with a picture not the actual pictures themselves.

 

I worked as a press agency photographer for several years- the number of times I obtained a release? Zero! Number of problems? Zero!

 

Basically you can photograph anybody and publish it- there's absolutely nothing they can do about it unless you defame them.

In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1) Info Re: don't need model release in UK

By leonmoomin - leonmoomin@madasafish.com gb Wed 26/03/03 01:59:15 GMT

Website:


Yes, technically, the law here is:

 

The owner of the Camera or Camcorder owns the Photographs or movie rights.

 

The only legal drawback to not having a model release would be.

 

The person in the pictures might decide that they don't want them published and could take an injunction preventing you from doing so, to late if you already have and would only usually happen if the model becomes more famous or something.  The only way you would be in trouble would be if you tried to publish the pictures after the injunction has been issued.  If a photographer does have a model release, there would be no case for an injunction!

 

Most local press photographers may ask people to sign model releases for ethical reasons!

 

leonmoomin

In reply to Message (2905.3.1) Info don't need model release in UK

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com gb Tue 25/03/03 23:32:40 GMT

Website:


Photographers in the UK don't need the models' permission to publish pictures.

 

As long as pictures do not miss-represent a person, then a photographer is perfectly free to publish anything he wants. You only need a model release for such things as product endorsements and stuff like that.

 

The law is different in the US, but this guy is in the UK.

 

Obviously, if it's your girlfriend, there might be other problems if she doesn't like what you have done, but nothing legally : )

In reply to Message (2905.3) Warning! Re: Proposition...should I or shouldn't I?

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net ca Tue 25/03/03 23:25:11 GMT

Website:


Go for it...

 

***BUT***

 

Don't post or otherwise distribute any of the pictures unless you get both of them to sign releases which clearly indicate that they have given you permission to use the pics for whatever purpose you have in mind (free posting, sale, whatever). Such an agreement will fend off any potential lawsuit (assuming you don't exceed any limitations in the agreement they sign). If they don't want to sign, or you don't feel comfortable asking, keep the pics to yourself!

In reply to Message (2905) Question Proposition...should I or shouldn't I?

By Wet_Gorilla - hardy_har_hard@hotmail.com gb Tue 25/03/03 22:37:47 GMT

Website:


Ok, let me set the scene...met the woman of my dreams last christmas and told her upfront about my preference for wetlook. To my surprise she not only thought it was cool, but a couple of weeks later told me she gets her sexual kicks out of getting messy fully-clothed. However, she is a bit paranoid about her weight and appearance and won't let me take pictures...until...last week. She really wants me to take photos of her and her best friend, who is really, really hot getting wet and messy in my bathroom. However, only problem is, I can imagine her getting even more paranoid during this shoot as she will think i'm looking at her friend more than her...

So...

what do you lot think...should I go for it?

should i post the pictures?

Am i a big wuss?

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

All WAM Drunk Sex Orgy WetLooker.com
WetlookPOV.com

Minx Movies - M12 - Dressed in Wet is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M15 - Wet Me Now is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M14 - Get Wet With Me is now in the Download Store
2ipmd65.jpg2ipmdg2.jpgckfbj77.jpgjapgs25.jpgzgjbt99.jpg Download Store 2fpbs94.jpgkijws74.jpgrlsps97.jpglasbjg7.jpg2fptg96.jpg2gpdde7.jpg


Minx Movies - M8 - Mask Of Wetness is now in the Download Store
Download Store



[ This page took 0.033 seconds to generate ]