Britney Spears upskirt pictures

[strictlybroadband]

Public information statement:

We have the latest photos of Britney getting out of a car, and giving everyone a good glimpse of her shaven fanny. Whoopee!

You can get banners and links here: http://sbbanners.strictlybroadband.com/

Promote it while it's hot...

FAQ:

Q: Do we have the rights to this photo?

A: Yes.

[JT]

Are you saying surfers can see britney spears upskirt pictures (http://www.strictlybroadband.com/sb/britney.jsp?promoter_name=cumcat&click_name=cumcat) here?

[strictlybroadband]

Are you saying surfers can see britney spears upskirt pictures (http://www.strictlybroadband.com/sb/britney.jsp?promoter_name=jtisgay&click_name=jtisgay) here?

Precisely.

[JT]

Precisely.


LMAO

[adultbusiness]

Are they different from these ones? http://www.britneyupskirt.org/

[strictlybroadband]

Are they different from these ones? http://www.britneyupskirt.org/

Yes, these are new ones.

[Cardinal_Sin]

Yes, these are new ones.

The new ones that were posted on another forum about 2 weeks ago and already saved to half the World's computer owners' hard drives already?

[xcite-tv]

FAQ:

Q: Do we have the rights to this photo?

A: Yes.

so you have a signed model release.. or a copy of one. or at least, the photographer has one available for your use?

:bandb:

[NumptyNuts]

they are so last month ;)

good luck with them them though -

On serious note what if she does not want her pussy shown on the web can she take us all to court?

[adultbusiness]

they are so last month ;)

good luck with them them though -

On serious note what if she does not want her pussy shown on the web can she take us all to court?

She'd have busy lawyers, even those new pics are all over the net.....

[psl]

x-cite check your PM's

[Jel]

you mean the ones also on offer at Britney Spears Sex Tape (http://www.britneyhomesextape.com/)? ;)

[NumptyNuts]

She'd have busy lawyers, even those new pics are all over the net.....

this is what I dont get, my listings can get bumbed for invalid 2257 link yet pics of famous people nude need no docs......

[Jel]

I think it depends on where the pics were taken, but can't be 100% on that. Something to do with a public place etc.

[fosburger]

Yes if you have a certain level of recognition you cannot sue ... something like that.

[dvtimes]

If the pics are shot in a public place, no model release is needed.

[dvtimes]

However unless its another sex vid, I am not sure if people would pay to see them, simply as the last lot were high quality.

[chris@uk-pornogirls.com]

I don't think you have to pay to see them "REGISTER FREE TO SEE THE UNCENSORED PICS" is it not just a email address gaining exercise.
Not 100% sure how affiliates gain from this unless affiliate code stays for future purchases.
Must admit Britney's pussy still is a big attraction .. (and getting bigger by the sprog)

[NumptyNuts]

I think it depends on where the pics were taken, but can't be 100% on that. Something to do with a public place etc.

ah OK so if I shoot a bird in the local public park I dont need docs.

I get a little hacked off with this esp coming from the SB camp given their clear stance on 'BBFC' approved movies.

I don't get it, trying to do the legal and right thing with one hand then publishing gutter press tat with the other, no offence Jerry but there is no consistancy.

[Jel]

ah OK so if I shoot a bird in the local public park I dont need docs.

I get a little hacked off with this esp coming from the SB camp given their clear stance on 'BBFC' approved movies.

I don't get it, trying to do the legal and right thing with one hand then publishing gutter press tat with the other, no offence Jerry but there is no consistancy.

If you take a picture of someone, say me, doing whatever (walking, running, playing football, pissing up a tree) in a public place you can publish that picture and I have no recourse to sue you. Same as if you take a pic of some bird flashing her tits to her boyfriend, or sunbathing topless. So I'm led to believe.

[dvtimes]

If you take a picture of someone, say me, doing whatever (walking, running, playing football, pissing up a tree) in a public place you can publish that picture and I have no recourse to sue you. Same as if you take a pic of some bird flashing her tits to her boyfriend, or sunbathing topless. So I'm led to believe.

correct

thats why the press can publish the pics as they (if you notice) are mainly in public places.

under uk law a car is also claseed as a public place.

[strictlybroadband]

I don't think you have to pay to see them "REGISTER FREE TO SEE THE UNCENSORED PICS" is it not just a email address gaining exercise.
Not 100% sure how affiliates gain from this unless affiliate code stays for future purchases.

Of course it does - once you've registered a member at Strictly Broadband, their purchases earn you commission for life, even if they clear their cookies, etc.

[Scotty.T]

Same as if you take a pic of some bird flashing her tits to her boyfriend, or sunbathing topless. So I'm led to believe.

I wouldn't come North of the border and try that one:)

Going off 2 recent cases where guys were taking pics of clothed women in public, you could end up with a jail sentence. At the very least 3 years probabtion and getting placed on the sex offenders register, which is what these guys got.

It don't actually remember the charges that were brought but it was indecency or something like that.

Publishing as a news article or whatever is probably the main difference here, as the press have a wider scope.

[dvtimes]

I wouldn't come North of the border and try that one:)

Going off 2 recent cases where guys were taking pics of clothed women in public, you could end up with a jail sentence. At the very least 3 years probabtion and getting placed on the sex offenders register, which is what these guys got.

It don't actually remember the charges that were brought but it was indecency or something like that.

Publishing as a news article or whatever is probably the main difference here, as the press have a wider scope.

I am not aware of the case, but Iam guessing that the method was probably in the natuer of harasment.

by this i mean if i snaped a cweleb in public, then thats fine, as by natuer a celeb will (or should) expect to be photographed, and if a walked through leeds nude, again its resanable to expext people to take shots. Indeed many people do take pics of me driving my car or the car on its own (due to its slightly unorthodox look).

However if your just walking your dog as an unkown person and some person follows you taking pics (and possibly making lude sugestions) then I would expect that to be harrasment, and thus be charged.

Also its reasanable to presume that these Britny spear shots were posed for the camera (ie, set up).

-------------------

In fact I think it would be interesting to see what the person was charged for. I suspect harrasment or somthing.

[Scotty.T]

I am not aware of the case, but Iam guessing that the method was probably in the natuer of harasment.

by this i mean if i snaped a cweleb in public, then thats fine, as by natuer a celeb will (or should) expect to be photographed, and if a walked through leeds nude, again its resanable to expext people to take shots. Indeed many people do take pics of me driving my car or the car on its own (due to its slightly unorthodox look).

However if your just walking your dog as an unkown person and some person follows you taking pics (and possibly making lude sugestions) then I would expect that to be harrasment, and thus be charged.

Also its reasanable to presume that these Britny spear shots were posed for the camera (ie, set up).

-------------------

In fact I think it would be interesting to see what the person was charged for. I suspect harrasment or somthing.

Whatever one of the guys was doing was enough to raise suspicion for the police to be called and observe him sitting on a park bench taking pics.

"The officers confronted Holmes and saw the results of his filming, which showed zoomed-in close-up images of women’s bodies, in various states of dress and undress."

[dvtimes]

Whatever one of the guys was doing was enough to raise suspicion for the police to be called and observe him sitting on a park bench taking pics.

"The officers confronted Holmes and saw the results of his filming, which showed zoomed-in close-up images of women’s bodies, in various states of dress and undress."

that sugest to me he was also photographing women at there homes (ie spying on them through a window), which is an offence i belive.

i would also suspect that unless somone made a complante, the reason why he was charged is if he admited spying on women. i mean the police would not charge him if he said all the women were models as there would be no case (unless as i say somone made the complante).

I would suspect that the person admited his error to the police.

[Scotty.T]

that sugest to me he was also photographing women at there homes (ie spying on them through a window), which is an offence i belive.

i would also suspect that unless somone made a complante, the reason why he was charged is if he admited spying on women. i mean the police would not charge him if he said all the women were models as there would be no case (unless as i say somone made the complante).

I would suspect that the person admited his error to the police.

There was one incident mentioned where he filmed directly below her balcony. That was the most extreme incident. The rest were in parks and on beaches apparently. He did say it was for sexual gratification when questioned.

[Geezer]

We have had this before on here with old gary.
If you are in a public place then you can be photographed and no permission is needed. They were talking of bringing in some stupid law many many years where you would need permission. This meant that at a sporting even like a foot match you would need the permission of all the people in the crowd who were in the pic.

If a woman is walking down the high street stark bollock naked I can take pictures of her. If a woman is on a public beach naked or not I can photoghraph her.

If Britney Spears or Joan Bloggs are in a public place they can be photographed. I actually think it only has to be the photographer who is in a public place. Its something like if you can be seen from a public place then its ok to photograph you. This is why photographers will hire a boat and park off shore, they are not in a private place (private beach) the people they are photographing are.

[dvtimes]

There was one incident mentioned where he filmed directly below her balcony. That was the most extreme incident. The rest were in parks and on beaches apparently. He did say it was for sexual gratification when questioned.

so he admited to the crime.

just being under her balcany spying on her (even without the camera) would be a crime (not sure the exact crime, but it wouyld be taken seriusly).

[Scotty.T]

We have had this before on here with old gary.
If you are in a public place then you can be photographed and no permission is needed. They were talking of bringing in some stupid law many many years where you would need permission. This meant that at a sporting even like a foot match you would need the permission of all the people in the crowd who were in the pic.

If a woman is walking down the high street stark bollock naked I can take pictures of her. If a woman is on a public beach naked or not I can photoghraph her.

If Britney Spears or Joan Bloggs are in a public place they can be photographed. I actually think it only has to be the photographer who is in a public place. Its something like if you can be seen from a public place then its ok to photograph you. This is why photographers will hire a boat and park off shore, they are not in a private place (private beach) the people they are photographing are.

Yeah I have heard that before from other threads.

As I say I don't know the actual basis of these charges the guys got done for only what the press reported. Maybe he had a stalk on as he took the pics.

Maybe it is just a Scottish thing.

[dvtimes]

We have had this before on here with old gary.
If you are in a public place then you can be photographed and no permission is needed. They were talking of bringing in some stupid law many many years where you would need permission. This meant that at a sporting even like a foot match you would need the permission of all the people in the crowd who were in the pic.


A football erina is not a public place.

However I belive that if the football ground makes people aware that filming is going on (ie for tv) that, by being in such a place your giving presumed consent. Ie you would not have a case against the tv company or football grounds for being filmed.

A bit like when 'hit man and her' used to go to the local nightclub some years ago. We went, but there were signes up to say they were filming, indeed it was hard to misds the cameras. And so if you were filmed dancing (they never filmed me, they said move, no ugly people), they are aware of the fact they are being filmed and so give consent.

[Geezer]

so he admited to the crime.

just being under her balcany spying on her (even without the camera) would be a crime (not sure the exact crime, but it wouyld be taken seriusly).

I don't understand why blokes take the risk, they could join somewhere like www.vouyeurcams.com and do all the spting without the risks. Although for a lot of voyeurs or peeping toms the fear of being caught is a part of the excitement. Although its more about being caught by the woman rather than the old bill :)

[dvtimes]

Yeah I have heard that before from other threads.

As I say I don't know the actual basis of these charges the guys got done for only what the press reported. Maybe he had a stalk on as he took the pics.

Maybe it is just a Scottish thing.

scotish law has stronger laws on decencty too.

While you can walk around a town nude in the uk, you will probably just get a coution, in scotland you could spend time in prison.

[Geezer]

A football erina is not a public place.

However I belive that if the football ground makes people aware that filming is going on (ie for tv) that, by being in such a place your giving presumed consent. Ie you would not have a case against the tv company or football grounds for being filmed.

A bit like when 'hit man and her' used to go to the local nightclub some years ago. We went, but there were signes up to say they were filming, indeed it was hard to misds the cameras. And so if you were filmed dancing (they never filmed me, they said move, no ugly people), they are aware of the fact they are being filmed and so give consent.


Ok then, the London Marathon. That is run through the streets which are public places, they don't go and ask all the spectators for their permission.

[dvtimes]

I don't understand why blokes take the risk, they could join somewhere like www.vouyeurcams.com (http://www.vouyeurcams.com) and do all the spting without the risks. Although for a lot of voyeurs or peeping toms the fear of being caught is a part of the excitement. Although its more about being caught by the woman rather than the old bill :)

i expect doing it is the thrill.

a bit like kids who steal cars, its just a kick.

but then again you have people having sex in public places for the thrill of being court.

[Scotty.T]

so he admited to the crime.

just being under her balcany spying on her (even without the camera) would be a crime (not sure the exact crime, but it wouyld be taken seriusly).

This wasn't the only incident. Things aren't clear what incidents he was charged with from the press stories.

The other guy was walking down the street taking pics on his mobile phone. :)

[dvtimes]

Ok then, the London Marathon. That is run through the streets which are public places, they don't go and ask all the spectators for their permission.

its a public place

also you know your going to be filmed.

and even then when you apply i think it says on the site it will be on tv (so you are aware).

Do not forget that such as a football match is not a public place and that you cannot simply turn up with a tv crew and start filming and broadcasting. you need permishion to do this.

but i think anyone can film and broadcast the london marothon (buty i am not sure). While the event is public, at the time of the run, as the roads have been set up for the event, then at that point in time, it could be clased as a private area. but i suspect the marothon is public and you can take pics and publish them. this is not the same as a football match were only certain people have permishion to do so.

Its a bit like at some events i have gone to, i have been given a pass to take pics and publish them, while the common people are unable to do so.

[Geezer]

its a public place

also you know your going to be filmed.

and even then when you apply i think it says on the site it will be on tv (so you are aware).

Do not forget that such as a football match is not a public place and that you cannot simply turn up with a tv crew and start filming and broadcasting. you need permishion to do this.

but i think anyone can film and broadcast the london marothon (buty i am not sure). While the event is public, at the time of the run, as the roads have been set up for the event, then at that point in time, it could be clased as a private area. but i suspect the marothon is public and you can take pics and publish them. this is not the same as a football match were only certain people have permishion to do so.

Its a bit like at some events i have gone to, i have been given a pass to take pics and publish them, while the common people are unable to do so.

I actually forgot about this and didn't mention it for a free plug, but I had a pic published in the centre pages of a book about the marathon. Its a great pic of a multi storey car park with spectators inside. They are all cheering and clapping and they look like they are in boxes. Now that book was published and all the people could clearly be seen. Do you think if it was a problem they would have published it?
You might say the car park is public, but that takes me back to my bit about if you can be seen from a public place and the photographer is in a public place then its ok.

Oh and you don't have to aply to be a spectator :)

[dvtimes]

This wasn't the only incident. Things aren't clear what incidents he was charged with from the press stories.

The other guy was walking down the street taking pics on his mobile phone. :)

often also what the press reports may not be the full story, but morte highlights.

if you listen to such as talk sport, and other shows. they will discuss newspaper stories, and then after an hour somone phones up who explains the story in full, and it turns out that what the papers say is only a small bit of the true story.

Its why i never take too much noice of news stories.

its like when i was arrested at that demonstration. it was reported that somone was arested with weapons. the way it was worded was to make out some protesters had gone to start problems, while the truth was it was me, and i had some diy tools in the car that i had got from my unkles but had not bothered to take out.

but as you say, this case was more of somone syping/harrasing womoen than a case of simply taking pics.

[dvtimes]

I actually forgot about this and didn't mention it for a free plug, but I had a pic published in the centre pages of a book about the marathon. Its a great pic of a multi storey car park with spectators inside. They are all cheering and clapping and they look like they are in boxes. Now that book was published and all the people could clearly be seen. Do you think if it was a problem they would have published it?
You might say the car park is public, but that takes me back to my bit about if you can be seen from a public place and the photographer is in a public place then its ok.

Oh and you don't have to aply to be a spectator :)

spectators are in a public place, and as i have said if your in a public place then your alowed to be photographed.

as i have said before a sports arena is not public (its private as you have to pay to enter and is owned by a private firm), and so you cannot take film people and publish it. if you belive you can, go down with a vid camera and start broadcasting football games. Iam sure sky will be happy for you to do so.


by the way, were you a runner or a spectator?

[dvtimes]

I actually forgot about this and didn't mention it for a free plug, but I had a pic published in the centre pages of a book about the marathon. Its a great pic of a multi storey car park with spectators inside. They are all cheering and clapping and they look like they are in boxes. Now that book was published and all the people could clearly be seen. Do you think if it was a problem they would have published it?
You might say the car park is public, but that takes me back to my bit about if you can be seen from a public place and the photographer is in a public place then its ok.

Oh and you don't have to aply to be a spectator :)

Having thought about it, Isuspect that the photographer took the pic beliving that you were in a costume. You should inform them that it was you, and not a costume.

[psl]

[QUOTE=dvtimes]often also what the press reports may not be the full story, but morte highlights.

if you listen to such as talk sport, and other shows. they will discuss newspaper stories, and then after an hour somone phones up who explains the story in full, and it turns out that what the papers say is only a small bit of the true story.

Its why i never take too much noice of news stories.

QUOTE]

But you think we should? Is that why you post all the BBC links?

[dvtimes]

But you think we should? Is why you post all the BBC links?

yes

[Geezer]

by the way, were you a runner or a spectator?

I was the photographer

[Geezer]

Having thought about it, Isuspect that the photographer took the pic beliving that you were in a costume. You should inform them that it was you, and not a costume.


What?, sounds like we just entered the DVT zone.

I took the pic

[psl]

Earth to DVT are you receiving us?

[dvtimes]

I was the photographer

in that case, i suspect the shot would be so out of focus that you would not be able to tell who was in the shot. :P

[dvtimes]

What?, sounds like we just entered the DVT zone.

I took the pic

i did not read your post in full. i find if i do bordom kicks in and i go into a coma. :P :P :P :P

[Geezer]

in that case, i suspect the shot would be so out of focus that you would not be able to tell who was in the shot. :P

No I took it not DVT

Of course they always publish out of focus pics in hardback books sponsored by Lord Snowdon :noway2:

[dvtimes]

No I took it not DVT

Of course they always publish out of focus pics in hardback books sponsored by Lord Snowdon :noway2:

I have seen that book.

Its photographs taken by the speaceal needs. I thank you. :P

[Geezer]

I have seen that book.

Its photographs taken for people with speaceal needs.

Exactly, You probably saw it at the day care centre

[dvtimes]

Exactly, You probably saw it at the day care centre

Ha

rubish come back.

I win. You loose that one.

I am more witty than you.

In fact if i was you i would edit that post to save embaresment.

Anyway i am off to walk the dog so it will give you a few hours to try to come up with a decent come back.

But if i was you, just take the shame.

:cheer: :P :cheer: :P :cheer:

[Jel]

fucking hell. Let me scroll back to page one.

[Jel]

OK, read it all, and I conclude my wife is a shitcunt slag. Aside from that, I got a bit lost tbh.

[-HF]

all that negativity in this thread. can't you cunts just get along?

[TGITC]

Not gonna claim to be an expert either way... Im not...
But I do know that a key phrase has been missing from this thread...

'Reasonable expectation of privacy'

Again I dont know exactly where that phrase fits into the overall argument...
But I know its a big part of the puzzle

[Jel]

OK, read it all, and I conclude my wife is a shitcunt slag. Aside from that, I got a bit lost tbh.

So that's what time I got in from the pub then.

[chris@uk-pornogirls.com]

So that's what time I got in from the pub then.

:takethat: :stpatrick

[psl]

So that's what time I got in from the pub then.

:takethat: I take it you don't speak to your 'wife' anymore?

[Geezer]

:takethat: I take it you don't speak to your 'wife' anymore?


He phones but she can never talk cos her mum always told her "never speak with your mouth full" :atm:

[nekrom]

So that's what time I got in from the pub then.

Alcho. :gaylords:

-N