Log in

View Full Version : When customers take your photo secretly and post it online...



Pages : 1 [2]

Melonie
04-25-2015, 12:00 AM
usually, good spenders want some discretion, in my experience. one issue that might give the club incentive to prevent photography is the risk these "photographers" take photos of good spending customers, thus outing the customers' identities, which would be a loss in the club's income if that big spender does not come back

This was the very issue I was thinking about when I posted earlier that clubowners would be loathe to provide the actual identities of customers to dancers for ANY purpose.

Indeed, many strip club customers do not want to have their strip club patronage noticed, recorded, or publicized. This was actually a major issue when strip club streaming video technology initially appeared. There were LOTS of complaints by customers who could potentially be 'caught' by the club's streaming video surveillance cameras, and those customer complaints quickiy led to clubowners abandoning their attempts to develop websites based on streamed strip club video.

While the gray area legal issues regarding the photographing of a strip club customer present in a 'public' place were never settled, the potential negative financial impact on the clubowner of losing camera-shy customers because of the possibility that they might be photographed / recorded proved to be highly effective. But dancers complaining about being similarly photographed / recorded ultimately doesn't carry the same financial 'leverage' with clubowners, since ( in the minds of many clubowners at least ) a dancer who quits the club over the issue costs the clubowner nothing and can easily be replaced with another dancer who doesn't voice similar objections.

Also, 'upscale' strip club customers are more likely to object to being photographed / recorded in a strip club, for somewhat obvious reasons. To be able to afford patronizing an 'upscale' strip club, customers need to have high incomes. This implies that such high earning customers will be 'professionals', or will be small business owners ... whose jobs / businesses depend on a favorable reputation which could be harmed by having pics / videos of their strip club activities posted to the internet. As a practical matter, this makes 'no photography' policies at 'upscale' strip clubs something which the customers, the dancers, and the clubowners, all have a reason to support.

However, where neighborhood / suburban clubs with a customer base of 'average' people are concerned, some number of those customers obviously wish to take photos / video of dancers. A customer base made up of 'working class guys' is also likely to be far less sensitive over the possibility of being photographed in the strip club. And neighborhood / suburban clubowners garner a major piece of club income from door cover charges, from bar / drink minimum sales, etc. rather than from VIP / CR sales to club customers. This strongly implies that neighborhood / suburban clubowners are more likely to resist kicking out customers for any reason. As such, where neighborhood / suburban strip clubs are concerned, it is probably only the dancers who would fully support a 'no photographs' policy.

cometbus
04-26-2015, 10:46 AM
I completely forgot to post a link to the finished article, which went up Friday. Here it is: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/strip-club-creepshots-illegal/. Thanks again Melonie and everyone for the discussion!

Melonie
04-26-2015, 11:40 AM
^^^ Nice article. The legal stuff was mostly specific to the state of Oregon, but that's totally understandable since the article initially focused on a Portland dancer and Portland strip club. Hopefully, Oregon's new laws will be upheld constitutionally such that they can actually provide the legal protections to dancers which the article claims they will.

Also very good idea to emphasize the need for clubs to clearly post a 'no photography' policy to strengthen a dancer's claim to an 'expectation of privacy'.

Also, thanks for publicizing the need for growing future concern regarding 'stealth' camera technology combined with facial recognition software search capabilities. IMHO your choice of the word 'powderkeg' was totally appropriate !

However, one of the posted comments to your story independently raises the same issue discussed earlier in this thread ... the probable legal differences between posting a photo ( for non-profit 'fair use' purposes ) taken of a performance before a 'public' audience, versus the posting of an intimate, 'private' photo of activities never intended for a 'public' audience. It remains to be seen how future courts will eventually address this 'gray' area of the law.

pumpkinpie
04-28-2015, 04:23 PM
My question is if we are so concerned with customers plastering our photos and videos all over the internet how is it that we are ok with the club it self streaming video of us on stage? I personally quit because I would not sign a contract to be video taped on stage for the clubs live cam show.

Most girls at that club believe it’s not a big issue and even girls on this site discussed it as if it was no big deal. But is being recorded by the club any better then by the customers?

Either way it’s a recording of me nude online. And once its online it permanent.

Melonie
04-28-2015, 05:19 PM
if we are so concerned with customers plastering our photos and videos all over the internet how is it that we are ok with the club it self streaming video of us on stage? I personally quit because I would not sign a contract to be video taped on stage for the clubs live cam show.

This goes back to the issue of the club being a 'public' venue, but the clubowner still needing a copyright release from dancers so that the club is able to PROFIT from the use of dancer images / videos. US copyright law is well established, and is very 'black and white' regarding for-profit use of images / videos without permission of the copyright owner. In legal terms, however, copyright related issues have absolutely nothing to do with 'expectation of privacy' issues.

But you are correct that any images posted to the internet, with or without the knowledge or permission of the 'subject', and with or without proper copyright arrangements, can potentially be used for all sorts of future purposes.

miss.a.p1600
04-28-2015, 07:48 PM
The people who make the laws are sexist and ignorant.

They know good and damn well people in the strip club, dancers and even customers, expect privacy. Hell half the men that waltz up in there are married and I bet their wives don't know they are spending time and possible joint marital money in there.

I never signed anything saying my likeness could be used for anything without my consent. I did agree to be viewed by paying club patrons at that current moment. But not recorded or photographed.

Knowing that creeps can secretly tape me against my knowledge is just disturbing!

Melonie
05-04-2015, 01:26 PM
people in the strip club, dancers and even customers, expect privacy. Hell half the men that waltz up in there are married and I bet their wives don't know they are spending time and possible joint marital money in there.

Agreed from a common sense standpoint. However, from a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has ruled that people in 'public' places can be photographed without any need for consent ( as long as such photographs are not used 'for profit' - which brings copyright law into the equation ). Thus the legal argument can be made that both dancers and customers who willingly appear in a strip club which is open to the 'public' can be photographed without any need for their consent, and that said photographs can be used by the photographer ( and others ) for many non-profit purposes.

This legal argument still remains unsettled, but is being strongly pushed by 'Glassholes'. Some states are pushing in the opposite direction via enacting new 'revenge porn' laws, but some such laws are already being struck down by the courts because they violate the apparent constitutional right of a ( stealth ) photographer to take pictures in a 'public' place.

To give you some idea of the unsettled nature of this legal principle, my attorney pointed out the existence of a very recent NY court case. That case involved a professional photographer setting up on the balcony of his apartment, taking pictures of people in surrounding apartment buildings ( on their own balconies, through their sliding glass doors and windows etc. ) using a giant lens, and publishing photo prints based on those pictures ( which generated a profit for the professional photographer). The court ruled that the people photographed in their own apartments did NOT have an 'expectation of privacy', thus the photographer had the right to take and publish the pictures. However, the court also ruled that the people photographed in their own apartments DID have the right to bring lawsuits seeking payments from the photographer as a result of his profiting via 'copyright violation'. See



Knowing that creeps can secretly tape me against my knowledge is just disturbing!

Yup and in 'real world' terms this is arguably the case regardless of whether stealth strip club pics are banned by a published strip club 'no cameras' policy. As the technology migrates from watch cams, to button cams, to ( next year's ) camera equipped contact lenses, the ability of dancers or bouncers to detect stealth photography taking place in the club becomes more and more difficult.