Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Wet Brianna


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, misguided15 said:

I think it was to do with records of age keeping. Basically she was supposed to keep a proof of age for everyone (even just in the background) in her videos. Obviously a bit hard to do that when recording in public.

it is simpler than that. She worked for clipsforsale as a content creator, and they had rules. Any private company can have such rules, and she failed to abide by them. However, she could have continued to make content; even in public, had she chosen to use blurring, or completely exclude faces. However, she had a fit, and chose to completely quit making content.

Her attitude was awful, and while I enjoyed some of her content. She was very mean in interactions with fans as I noted on twitter, and other places. Maybe she will come back one day. who knows.

Link to comment
On 1/17/2023 at 7:36 PM, TVGuy said:

While this used to be the case, new laws meant to target "revenge porn" have made this a bit more nuanced, at least when the video can be classified as a "sexual performance."

Yeah, but I mean no nudity in her videos. So it's not really porn. It's just a video she filmed in public. Should have just made her own website.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, bigbeast88 said:

Yeah, but I mean no nudity in her videos. So it's not really porn. It's just a video she filmed in public. Should have just made her own website.

When it comes to US law, nudity is not a requirement for a work to be considered pornographic or a sexual performance.  The intent and purpose of the work is the primary defining factor.  If the primary purpose of the work is to sexually excite, stimulate, or appeal to the prurient interest, or if it lacks any other serious purpose, it is likely, from a legal standpoint, pornographic.

Considering the marketing and distribution of Wet Brianna's videos, I think one would have a very difficult time making the legal argument that their primary purpose is one of substantial artistic, literary, scientific, or legal value, such that these values override the sexual interest in the work.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bigbeast88 said:

Yeah, but I mean no nudity in her videos. So it's not really porn. It's just a video she filmed in public. Should have just made her own website.

Any photographing or filming of a person doing something that is to elicit a sexual response from the viewers of the content within in a public setting is a form of pornography. Nudity has nothing to do with it. The thorny legal issues that usually comes up would be the appearance of people in the images that were unaware that they were being recorded, let alone were asked for permission to be in the images at all.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mizu said:

Any photographing or filming of a person doing something that is to elicit a sexual response from the viewers of the content within in a public setting is a form of pornography. Nudity has nothing to do with it. The thorny legal issues that usually comes up would be the appearance of people in the images that were unaware that they were being recorded, let alone were asked for permission to be in the images at all.

I think most people in USA think they need to give permission to be filmed in public, but that's not the case lol

I get what TVGuy is saying though

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bigbeast88 said:

I think most people in USA think they need to give permission to be filmed in public, but that's not the case lol.

Actually it is. If a person is in public and is filmed or photographed by a news crew, then that's fine, because there is no expectation or privacy. The news crew isn't uploading it to an adult website for profit. Because Wet Brianna was filming in public settings with people in public unaware that they had become a part of an adult themed video, (aka: without their consent) it becomes illegal. Not to mention any videos taking place inside private businesses such as a 7/11 or a clothing store, etc. Although thrilling for some, it's quite rude and disrespectful for those that didn't want to have anything to do with it and weren't consulted first.

Link to comment

So I understand TVGuy and mizu as well and that is a common misconception in the US. Laws change state by state, but most states only require 1 consenting party to be filmed doing anything in the US that is not inside a private residence (home for example); just because you are inside a business means nothing. That means, she never actually broke the law unless she filmed inside a private residence or somewhere she was trespassed from previously. With that being said, urinating in clothing might be immorality wrong in certain situations to some, but its not illegal under any circumstances in the US what so ever. For example, there is a reason law enforcement can only make you clean your mess afterwords if you urinate in a cop car, they can't charge you for public urination. There is also a reason we have cameras following "live action" tv shows in certain situations here; it only requires 1 consenting party to film and distribute. I have ignored this topic for a long time, but I hate seeing a content provider bashed and cancel cultured this way when in reality it was all due to platform rule violations and their version of regulation. We are talking morals and personal opinions versus actual law violations. 

Link to comment

@bfambro it’s not a morality issue and I doubt anybody’s trying to cancel her. There were probably children in those videos, and regardless of age there were people who ended up in a porn video and had no idea. You can’t even give consent if you aren’t aware it’s happening. I’m just as upset as the next guy that her vids got taken down, they were phenomenal. But it’s not literally 1984 just because there’s rules about public decency and privacy

Link to comment

@bfambro Brianna had multiple videos where she purposefully went up to someone, or stood near someone in their line of sight just to pee herself and make them watch. While there can be some moral gray area with general public stuff, i.e.- some of her videos were technically in public, but with not people around, the one's where she approaches someone without their consent and starts peeing I really don't see how that is arguable. Think, the one at the restaurant where she starts pissing in front of the hostess, or the ones in stores pissing in front of employees. Or the one where she purposefully awkwardly stands in front of a group of girls and pisses herself. I just don't see how any of those are okay. Not to mention that she likely did not clean up her messes. Outside, okay fine that will probably wash away. But in Walmart??? Those poor people have enough shit to deal with, let alone having to clean up a grown woman's urine off the floor! (And not even an accident!!)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, amasonbo1 said:

@bfambro Brianna had multiple videos where she purposefully went up to someone, or stood near someone in their line of sight just to pee herself and make them watch. While there can be some moral gray area with general public stuff, i.e.- some of her videos were technically in public, but with not people around, the one's where she approaches someone without their consent and starts peeing I really don't see how that is arguable. Think, the one at the restaurant where she starts pissing in front of the hostess, or the ones in stores pissing in front of employees. Or the one where she purposefully awkwardly stands in front of a group of girls and pisses herself. I just don't see how any of those are okay. Not to mention that she likely did not clean up her messes. Outside, okay fine that will probably wash away. But in Walmart??? Those poor people have enough shit to deal with, let alone having to clean up a grown woman's urine off the floor! (And not even an accident!!)

I'm not familiar with the hostess one

Link to comment
On 1/21/2023 at 12:40 AM, wjl1981 said:

Never seen the word "prurient" before so I learned something new today 

It is used a lot in legal language and laws regarding pornography and obscenity.

On 1/21/2023 at 3:19 PM, mizu said:

Actually it is. If a person is in public and is filmed or photographed by a news crew, then that's fine, because there is no expectation or privacy. The news crew isn't uploading it to an adult website for profit. Because Wet Brianna was filming in public settings with people in public unaware that they had become a part of an adult themed video, (aka: without their consent) it becomes illegal. Not to mention any videos taking place inside private businesses such as a 7/11 or a clothing store, etc. Although thrilling for some, it's quite rude and disrespectful for those that didn't want to have anything to do with it and weren't consulted first.

Generally, taking videos or photos inside of any store or place of public accommodation is legal.  You can be asked to stop filming, and kicked out, or charged with trespassing if you refuse to leave, but the act of photography or videography isn't against the law in such a situation. 

In the US, the first amendment generally protects one's ability to record videos and/or photos, regardless of consent.  However, there are a few exceptions to this that the law recognizes.  One such exception is the reasonable expectation of privacy exception.  Basically, would one generally have an expectation of privacy in a certain setting? If so, affirmative consent would be required.  For example, if you are in your own bedroom, home, a private hotel room, bathroom, locker room, dressing room, etc.  These are all places where one may reasonably expect to be private, and thus you would need permission for photography or filming.

Other exceptions are more complicated.  For example, some of the exceptions related to sexual imagery.  For example, when I worked in TV News I was perfectly within my legal rights to film events, like the World Naked Bike Ride, and publish the resulting video to news websites and even use in our news broadcasts.  However, if I were to take that very same video and upload it to a public nudity fetish site, I would need permission under current US law of everyone appearing in that video.  The intent behind the distribution makes the difference.

On 1/24/2023 at 11:44 PM, bfambro said:

but most states only require 1 consenting party to be filmed doing anything in the US that is not inside a private residence (home for example); just because you are inside a business means nothing.

True, being inside a business doesn't mean anything legally when it comes to rights regarding photography and videography, as long as the business can be classified as a place of public accommodation and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy present.  However, when you are talking about single party versus two party consent states, this has to do with audio recording and wiretap laws, not visual recording.  The US supreme court has upheld the right to video record and photograph anywhere, with only a few exceptions, for anyone in the US.

On 1/24/2023 at 11:44 PM, bfambro said:

That means, she never actually broke the law unless she filmed inside a private residence or somewhere she was trespassed from previously. With that being said, urinating in clothing might be immorality wrong in certain situations to some, but its not illegal under any circumstances in the US what so ever.

The actual act of filming is not illegal.  Even if she is trespassed, she can only be asked to leave, but the act of filming itself is still protected and there is no crime to be charged with in regards to that.  However, there are potential other crimes outside of filming that she could be charged with.  The video that she legally recorded could be used as evidence of those crimes.  Since she is peeing intentionally, if she causes someone else to come in contact with her urine that could be, depending on the state, considered assault.  And, because she is filming for sexual purposes, it could be considered sexual assault.  Similarly, if her pee comes into contact with any property that she doesn't own, and requires clean up, it could be charges as vandalism.

Because of how she is distributing the video, it is clear that the act of urination in this case is considered to be a sexual performance under US law.  As such, if any child were to witness this, there could be potential charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

These potential charges have nothing to do with her filming, the filming itself is still legal.

On 1/24/2023 at 11:44 PM, bfambro said:

when in reality it was all due to platform rule violations and their version of regulation. We are talking morals and personal opinions versus actual law violations. 

This is the law in the US.  Specifically USC 18.2257.

According to the law, any visual depiction of actual explicit sexual conduct, which is defined as content that appeals primarly to the purient interest and who's primary purpose is sexual excitement, and lacks any other significant artistic, literary, or scientific value, that the producer of such content must create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

The Violence Against Women Re-authorization act expands upon this to define a performer in such a depiction as any real person appearing in such content and expands the record keeping requirement to not just primary producers of the content, but secondary producers as well.  Secondary producers are defined as anyone who knowingly sells, transfers, or offers for sale any material which is intended for interstate or foreign commerce to which USC 18.2257 applies.

This means that clips4sale, or any other website that sells or makes available Wet Brianna's content must maintain a copy of these performer records.  Wet Brianna has always been required by law to maintain these proof of age records for everyone appearing in her videos, for as long as she has been making them.  What is different now is that the distributors of her videos are also required to maintain a copy of these records.  All she needs to do is to provide a copy of these records and she could continue to sell on Clips4sale.

In addition to the federal record keeping requirements, 48 states, plus Guam, have adopted state level anti-revenge porn laws that create additional requirements for producers of adult content.  Though these laws do vary a bit from state to state, one common factor is they almost all create an affirmative consent requirement, that the producer first get specific and documented consent before filming any content that is defined as a sexual performance.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...