Recording Shoeplay: Legal or Illegal?

Footsiefreak · Post by **Footsiefreak** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:35 pm

I came up with this thread because of the YouTube disappearance thread. So could it be that some of our shoeplay videos are being deleted because recording women without them knowing is illegal? So they are making examples of some of these guys by removing there videos? Also are there laws in your area that are against it?

Recently this guy got busted for taking an upskirt pic because it was caught on the stores video camera. So is recording shoeplay that much different?

Post by **nyllover** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:13 pm

If we are talking about legal stuff, it's illegal (everywhere) to take a video of someone without his or her consent. Having said that, the youtube disappearances are just because Youtube spotted adult content in those videos (because let's face it, we wank at those videos).

llama · Post by **llama** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:22 am

im not a lawyer but i believe taking pictures of feet on public property is legal...on private property, a bookstore or a mall for example ,they can ask you to stop. Now im talking about random pics here which would include feet, shoeplay etc. Upskirt pictures would be illegal anywhere and could lead to arrest. Big difference

pumplover · Post by **pumplover** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:44 am

I think the legality of filming a woman engaging in shoeplay is not so much in question with people as is the morality and ethical aspect of it. i'm no legal scholar, but if you're filming a woman's feet in hose and heels while she plays in public is totally fine until she asks you to stop. If you don't, then you have begun to cross the legality line. If it is legal regardless, I would say the general public feels that it is not right for people to videotape others in that context regardless of the legality.

For instance, videotaping at the airport could be construed as a peeping tom type offense if the authorities so desired it. I made tons of videos of my mother in law shoeplaying (without her knowledge), so the discovery of that wouldn't be seen by my family members as illegal, but rather an offense against their moral and ethical standards.

Which, BTW if ANYONE out there happened to save my mother in law vids off youtube at anytime....I'd love to get copies of those back in my pssoession....hard drive crash and need to delete others quickly forced me to lose some great shoeplay content.

Footsiefreak · Post by **Footsiefreak** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:12 pm

Xzzzy wrote:In the United States, it is NOT illegal to videotape a person in public with or without their consent. Things that occur in public are free to be filmed, sketched, gossipped about, or committed to memory. There is frequently confusion on this subject, especially as it related to police officers doing their job, but when it comes to a woman dangling a shoe in a mall food court or at church, etc....while security can ask you to leave the premises, you are 100% legally in the clear. At least in my country.

But as I mentioned this guy got arrested for taking an upskirt snapshot so wouldnt recording a lady shoeplay be the same?

Feeture Feature · Post by **Feeture Feature** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:18 pm

A woman shoeplaying in public should be aware or not care that her exposed feet could be seen by members of the public and could be recorded. If faceshots that can identify the woman are included and posted publicly that could lead to some problems. Taking upskirt photos or videos invades a woman's privacy in that she has not exposed her private areas to the public and should not expect her privacy to be invaded.

Post by **nyllover** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:25 pm

You are all right, it is not illegal to videotape someone (at least the parts of his/her body that anyone can see)... BUT it's a different story when it comes to publish that video online. For that you need the person's permission.

Footsiefreak · Post by **Footsiefreak** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:10 pm

nyllover wrote:You are all right, it is not illegal to videotape someone (at least the parts of his/her body that anyone can see)... BUT it's a different story when it comes to publish that video online. For that you need the person's permission.

but I dont think anyone is getting permission from these women

If I can find the video I mentioned I will post it. She was at the counter wearing a skirt and he was pretending to be looking for a drink and came up behind her and snaaped a shot. She saw him and Ireported it to the police. Then they get the security camera footage. So Im saying its more illegal and the woman says something then it will be pursued as a crime

Post by **nyllover** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:45 pm

Footsiefreak wrote:but I dont think anyone is getting permission from these women

That doesn't make it legal. If one day one of those women will wake up and see the video online, she will easily take it down or, even worst, bring the guy in court. That's what i mean

hiker · Post by **hiker** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:30 pm

nyllover wrote:You are all right, it is not illegal to videotape someone (at least the parts of his/her body that anyone can see)... BUT it's a different story when it comes to publish that video online. For that you need the person's permission.

I asked my wife, who is an attorney, and this was her interpretation as well. Though she a tax attorney and isn't well versed with this type of law.

She also said that it's a very gray area on where the legal line is drawn, and could be interpreted differently, depending on the judge. There are likely legal precedents that she isn't aware of.

As far as publishing the video, that depends on how the word "publish" is defined as well.

I realize that my post is about as clear as mud, as is our legal system.

llama · Post by **llama** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:15 pm

nyllover wrote:
Footsiefreak wrote:but I dont think anyone is getting permission from these women
That doesn't make it legal. If one day one of those women will wake up and see the video online, she will easily take it down or, even worst, bring the guy in court. That's what i mean

I agree with this completely..obv the odds of a woman finding her foot video on YT are small, but IF she did , she could take it down, and if she knew the filmer who posted it ( for example the speech teacher from YT would know which student sat at that angle to film her) she could probably get him in trouble

People who publish the videos are clearly doing it without the subjects permission, but the odds of them being "caught" are miniscule. To be fair if they ask permission beforehand it ceases to be candid

llama · Post by **llama** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 pm

hiker wrote:
nyllover wrote:You are all right, it is not illegal to videotape someone (at least the parts of his/her body that anyone can see)... BUT it's a different story when it comes to publish that video online. For that you need the person's permission.
I asked my wife, who is an attorney, and this was her interpretation as well. Though she a tax attorney and isn't well versed with this type of law.

She also said that it's a very gray area on where the legal line is drawn, and could be interpreted differently, depending on the judge. There are likely legal precedents that she isn't aware of.

As far as publishing the video, that depends on how the word "publish" is defined as well.

I realize that my post is about as clear as mud, as is our legal system.

Very muddy indeed Hiker but thank you to you and your wife for the insight

Post by **nyllover** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:12 pm

I say this from experience. Whenever a model shoot with us (as you know, i own Feet4Cash.com) we ask her to sign a model release form that an attorney created for us.

It's four pages long document, and saves us from any future troubles in case the model, one day, wakes up and decides she doesn't want to be on porn sites anymore. Without that document we wouldn't be able to do anything else but what she orders us to do.

Again, for candid videos, this really would be a rare case

notalwaysright10000 · Post by **notalwaysright10000** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:38 pm

"She also said that it's a very gray area on where the legal line is drawn, and could be interpreted differently, depending on the judge. There are likely legal precedents that she isn't aware of. "

May I ask what country you live in Hiker? (Or more to the point, in what country your wife earned her law degree?)

Because if we're talking about the prospect of criminal charges being filed against a United States citizen, I'm pretty confident that is just straight-out flatly impossible, no caveats, reservations.
If this is too bold a proclamation I would be sincerely curious (no sarcasm intended) to hear cited what *specific* law any candid filmer could even conceivably be charged with having violated - even if we grant in arguendo the very widest interpretative latitude imaginable. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll be very surprised if even a hypothetical case could be made without assuming gross disregard for the letter of the law and a highly improbable degree of determination of the part of both police and courts.

If we're talking about a civil case, then sure. In the USA you can posthumously sue a cow because he steak he was carved into wasn't tender enough. But even a civil case assumes two preconditions that I think are very unlikely to be met even individually, let alone successively:

1) The person filmed has to find out about it in the first place. The chances of this are about the same as my randomly running into someone from my small hometown in the midwest all the way out in here in California. Possible, but very remote.

2) Before the "victim" even knows whom to sue, they must ascertain the identity of the filmer, which will require a court order (probably several) and no small amount of investigative work on the part of the police. Can anyone see this happening just to establish cause of action in a prospective civil case that hasn't even been brought? (See the catch-22 for the plaintiff?)

There are death threats that don't get this level of commitment from the authorities. How much time do you think they're likely to spend on the case of a woman complaining that someone filmed her slipping her shoes off in a food court?