• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Parents outraged over cheerleaders being videotaped

DRBUZZ0

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
3,320
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12963229/

I recently saw a news story about parents being upset over someone who has been videotaping cheerleaders at high school football games and selling the tapes on eBay. The tapes are obviously being sold to those with a cheerleader fetish and the filming is very suggestive. (zooming in on certain areas and freezeframing)

They want the sheriff to do something about it. They say they do not understand why this is not being prosecuted.

Well. I got news for them: there’s nothing illegal about filming a public event. Sorry. Finding this revolting, sick, perverted and creepy are all perfectly understandable. I can completely see how if you saw yourself or your daughter in one of these videos, it would make your skin crawl.

Of course, the reality is, that if you are an attractive young women dancing as a cheerleader, there’s going to be a lot of guys in the stands with their minds in the gutter. Sorry…it’s true. But there’s definitely a difference between it being your classmates who are there primarily to watch the game versus having it all over the internet.

Unfortunately, this is not actually anything new. There are plenty of pervs on the internet who trade pictures of young girls in the park or at the beach. Many of them weren’t even taken candidly, but were grabbed from parenting magazine sites or family photo albums.

If I were to find out my neighbor had a lot of blown up bikini pictures of the Olsen twins when they were 14, I’d definitely be very creeped out, and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near any of the younger kids in my family. I’d probably also give a warning to my other neighbors.

I’m really not sure what the solution to this problem is. It may have to come down to the school banning videotaping. Perhaps they could instead offer parents the opportunity to buy a school-made videotape of the game. This goes deeper though. It’s completely reasonable to want to prevent the fear and embarrassment that this sort of thing would cause those shown, but as far as legal recourse: I don’t see any.

It could possibly be taken to civil court, on the grounds that it is exploitive or constitutes harassment. That’d be a tough case to make though. Trying to stop this by taking each individual into such a legal battle would be like trying to use a cork to plug the Titanic.

Perhaps the best solution (if there is one) is simply community shame. I don't think this guy should be harrassed to any extreme extent. But at the very least, knowing that those around you know what you are doing with your camcorder could be some disensentive. At the very least...then he'd know what it's like to be scared of people coming after you (such as an angry father)



Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.
 
Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.

Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.
 
The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases.


Yes, I did look into this. (Actually, I have before, having designed many websites, I always want to make sure things are on the up and up).

In this case, the event is being captured publicly. Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated. There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit.

Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.

So I suppose it's not a case where there is "nothing you can do." it's more one where there's no easy sure-fire thing you could do
 
Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.
People have perfectly legitimate privacy concerns about having their picture posted on the web. The fact that you can publish doesn't mean you must or should. If someone doesn't want their TAM picture on the net, simply don't put it up (not a horrible imposition, if you ask me.) It's called being a decent human being.
 
The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases.

That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.
 
Last edited:
Quote from the article:

CHRISTINE: I think it's embarrassing. They can see your face and if they wanted to find me it's not that hard.

ANA GARCIA: They, would be the 600-plus "happy buyers" who have left "positive feedback" for the seller, "cheer*girls." The tape we have is one of 20 advertised. This one features cheerleaders from schools in and around Santa Barbara, Rio Mesa, Dos Pueblos, Bishop Garcia Diego and Carpinteria.

Identifiable face; identifiable schools; commercial, for-profit enterprise; model release should be required. I'd say the parents of this girl, at least, have a case, as do any parents of any girl whose identifiable face appears in a video.

Consent to be photographed is not an issue, as the venue is a public space. Consent to use an identifiable face in a for-profit venture is an issue.

If all that appears are assorted closeups of anatomical features, it's not actionable, unless the cameraman is filming "private parts".

It will be interesting if this becomes a "test case".
 
Perhaps if the parents are concerned about their daughters being videotaped wearing short skirts in public while performing gymnastics and dance routines, they should not have permitted them to do so in the first place?

Yes, I agree filming them and selling the films is bad form and a bit sad, but would the parents feel happier if they videotaped them themselves and sold the tapes for school funds? Then why don't they?

What exactly are we supposed to be indignant about here? Girls dancing in public? Someone filming them? Teenage (or indeed older) masturbatory fantasy?
Cheerleaders are an American phenomenon. While I'm as partial to pretty girls as anyone, I have to admit I never really saw the point, unless it was to give girls something to do at High School Footbal games, so they didn't feel left out. In my schooldays they gave them hockey sticks and turned them loose to kill each other. I recall some male cheerleaders making the odd comment from the touchline, but you had to be a fast runner. Those girls were vicious.


As for guys in the crowd "having their minds in the gutter", I wonder at the sanity of any male of whatever age- and probably many women- who would not rather look at a bunch of pretty girls than a squad of apes in armor.
 
Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated.
I'm not sure that's really relevant. They may not be identified by name, but their likeness is being used without their permission.
There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit.
Well, we really don't know what the situation is with those videos. The producers may be ignorant of the law and opening themselves up to a lawsuit, or they may have gotten releases or settled with with anyone who complained. However, there is a bit of a grey area between "informational" and "commercial" use.

Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.
You could be right. I think the "Girls Gone Wild" people have been sued repeatedly, but they seem to still be in business.
 
As a non-American, I would have to question what exactly cheerleaders are for, except as a suggestive synchronized sexual display. It may be an all-American custom, but it still had to be questioned. It was only after the bizarre (and still unsolved) murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey that people started asking questions about the child beauty pageants that Jon-Benet was a champion of.

The other part is about (I assume) an unhealthy sexual interest in girls who are clearly below the age of consent. That is much more difficult. Paedophiles have been known to pass around pictures of children taken from clothing catalogues (this commonly happens in prisons in the UK).

From my side of the pond, one of the most noticeable cultural phenomena of the last ten years has been the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in popular culture from boy bands and "girl power", the focus has relentlessly been on girls too young to realise the sexual signals they are broadcasting in the fashions they wear are attracting attention from some men.

There's a reality show on at the moment on British TV called "Big Brother". I don't watch it as a rule, but I noticed this evening in passing that all of the women are wearing clothes, make-up and hairstyles of pre-pubescent girl gangs. Clearly nobody is asking any questions in the ad agencies where fashions like this begin.
 
When a child participates in a local school event, does that mean we as parents automatically acquiesce to them being displayed worldwide as soft porn? No. So I side with the angry mob of parents with pitchforks and torches on this one (for the sake of argument). :D

The laws and ethics associated with children are different than that of adults, so the TAM photo example is not quite the same thing.

Removing the TAM photos is something I'd call 'being a good neighbor' ethics. I agree in that case that there was no legal expectation of privacy. BUT whatever JREF could have legally done, a specific request for privacy should be honored if it is not too onerous. That is 'good neighbor' ethics and probably also simple good business.

I generally prefer there be fewer laws rather than more laws, and I lean toward working to solve these kinds of things on a community level.
 
There is a related question regarding the so-called "upskirt" photos and videos that are made without the consent of the victim.
In this case, the perpetrator positions a hidden camera on a stairwell or whatever and tapes women descending the stairs, hoping for a shot of underwear or naughty bits.
There have been attempts to prosecute these individuals, which have met with limited success. In most areas of the country, this practice was not found to be specifically illegal, most likely because the technology that allows it is relatively new. (there have always been "mirror artists" and "peekers" but that's a private enterprise)
Some states, notably New York, have passed specific upskirt legislation, but legal analysts feel that the statute will not pass muster.

Speaking of cheerleaders, our university hosted a summertime cheerleader camp for several years, with up to 2000 nubile enthusiasts partaking. The first year, our new athletic complex was still under construction, and the girls had to practice and perform outside. This drew boys and men like flies....

One fellow was busily photographing with a very professional rig; a large-format camera on a pro tripod with a variety of lenses and such. Everyone thought he was the "official" photographer till the camp organizers started talking among themselves. "No, I didn't hire him...."
He got a lot of pics before we booted him off campus.
 
Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts
 
That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.



Yeah...I did not reeally bring this up as an example of the rather broad subject of putting pictures of people up in general.

The fact is this: There are plenty of places where you will see candid pictures of people in public. It may be incidental. It may be unwelcome. It may be directly related to making money or not.


It could be a celeberity "slip" or an embarrassing picture of someone. It could be many things.



Yes. You can sue for it. The law can be a little ambiguous on this, at best.


But....any lawsuit involving this sort of thing is never going to be simple or open and shut. More likely it'll just end up in a drawn out legal mess. One of the problems being that manyu of the laws pertaining to this were written before the internet, where people are likely to have all kinds of online photo albums ect.

Unless you have a lot of money and want to make it your personal battle, I don't know that civil law is going to offer you very complete protection
 
I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.

I can forsee image capturing devices being banned at HS sports events in the future.
 
I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.

That's not the case. No law is broken until you use the images for commercial purposes (e.g. if you sell the footage on the internet). If you do that, and the faces of the people on the video can be clearly seen, you must obtain a model release form from them before selling the tape.
 
Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts
<elitist european hat>
While you oversex your youth with skimpy dresses and suggestive dancing, you deny them the basic sexual education they need to approach the subject in a healthy, safe manner. You say yes to looking and acting sexy, but no to actually having sex.

We, on the other hand, give our youth the necessary sexual education to have a responsible sex life, while we stear them away from becoming oversexed, so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>

The above is of course over-generalizations, but I'm guessing that's where they come from, whomever they are that critizise (sp?) you.
 
Good points but


<elitist european hat>
so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>
.

I think we could, especially in light of recent threads here, successfully argue that that is NOT the euro policy
 
What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.
 
What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.
This means that the cheerleaders can sue the guy for all of his profits, effectively destroying his incentive to put the film on ebay.

EDIT: Plus, 17 U.S.C § 503(a) provides for the impoundment of all infringing copies at any time, as well as the articles used to manufacture the copies.

After the final judgement, these tapes are likely to be destroyed.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom