S_H wrote:
If I am not mistaken it is legal to video tape, however, if you record someone's voice that would make it illegal.

edit: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

article talks about video taping, recording conversations, etc.
Seems like it depends on the State.

I think it might be legal if I have a security system for the whole house, but hiding a video camera in the changing room is a sure path to legal trouble, not to mention sleazy as hell.

And the fact that he apparently had no problem getting nude models makes it even worse, in my mind.  This is purely to take advantage of the non nude models.

Artemis Bare wrote:
Hmmm not sure if this is considered outing....

To me, it shouldn't be.  It's a public news story.  But then I don't think quoting a profile should be "outing" either.

ArtisticVisions wrote:

gotta kinda wonder in the days of tex and cell phones why they didnt call the cops to come on over during the shoot that they stayed for after they saw the camera.

This was before the shoot started. She needed those pics.

She probably told the cops after she got the pics.

JMHO.

Z.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Wow!   Why is the OP so hot to nail this photographer who "allegedly" video taping models without them knowing?  I believe the OP has something personal against him?  As for you, you did nothing wrong but remind him of the rules.  It's also against the rules to plaster the same stuff all over the forums.

Oh I know.

ArtisticVisions wrote:

gotta kinda wonder in the days of tex and cell phones why they didnt call the cops to come on over during the shoot that they stayed for after they saw the camera.

Agreed....

ArtisticVisions wrote:

gotta kinda wonder in the days of tex and cell phones why they didnt call the cops to come on over during the shoot that they stayed for after they saw the camera.

Because models are dumb

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Not always!  It depends.

don't see how this could not be outing with his name in the forum post header

Forums > General Industry > If any model has ever shot with "         " even tho he edited his post

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Depends.   Voice is almost always illegal and in a bathroom
or changing area may be.  One thing lets say he has a sign posted
or its written on the release.   Example stores often record people
in their dressing areas but signs warn you.

To be clear if he has a sign posted or its mentioned in his release
or paper work he may be fine.   Just because someone is arrested
doesn't mean later charges won't be dismissed or reduced.

Tony, the man with common sense! 

People need to be a little more thoughtful about the words they use.  The photographer "allegedly" committed some crime, but it's still under investigation.  The OP seems hot to take the dude down!  Multiple postings?  Not sure if it's personal or for business, but we get the idea! 

FACT:  Be smart, let the models know you want to video tape them too.  Ask if it's ok.  Many wont have a problem, and some will charge you extra.  Common sense says that video taping is getting more popular.  Just be cool about it.

As for threads about photographers getting busted for shooting with minors, I'm still waiting for those "implied nudes with minors" threads to provide some solid evidence that photographers are getting busted for it?  Are the prisons filling up with photographers yet?  Where's the facts?

ArtisticVisions wrote:
don't see how this could not be outing with his name in the forum post header

Forums > General Industry > If any model has ever shot with "         " even tho he edited his post

Because this is in the news, and the alleged photographer does not have a profile here.  Outing is based on it being about members here.  It is also at the discretion of the Moderators of the forum.  They judge what is an outing and what is not.

Sophistocles wrote:
His two profiles come up here: http://www.tfp.me/index.php?s=people&r= … tf=profile

One is here, already shut down. The other is his OMP profile, still active.

As long as he pays his dues on OMP, he wont be shu down.

ArtisticVisions wrote:

don't see how this could not be outing with his name in the forum post header

Forums > General Industry > If any model has ever shot with "         " even tho he edited his post

The point of the no outing rule is because of the he-said she-said debating.

I could easily come in here and without ever even meeting you say that you flaked on a shoot or tried to grope my tits or whatever, just because I felt like it. And then IF you even saw the thread, youd have to come in and defend yourself, and then we'd just start calling each other names, and nobody would know who to believe.

An actual news story with real charges isnt a "this model said that about me but its not true! wah wah wah!". His name is in public news now. If you google craig faulkner, the story comes up. Any model doing a reference check on this guy is going to find that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
==========
As for threads about photographers getting busted for shooting with minors, I'm still waiting for those "implied nudes with minors" threads to provide some solid evidence that photographers are getting busted for it?  Are the prisons filling up with photographers yet?  Where's the facts?

While I do not know all the details nor do I claim to know laws of any state, I do know more than one photographer in Texas who has been charged with such things as having a peephole cut in a dressing room wall, or video taping people in dressing rooms that were charged and never went to trial because of a plea agreement.

Some of those photographers also had civil charges filed against them, and lost the battle that way.  One photographer had to agree to not operate a studio for 10 years.  Another paid a lot to the defendant in civil court.  Yet another photographer,  was accused  of sexual misconduct when he photographed a minor and almost lost his studio, but finally the girl accuser finally recanted, but the damage to his reputation was severe.

There can be more problems than going to jail.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Because this is in the news, and the alleged photographer does not have a profile here.  Outing is based on it being about members here.  It is also at the discretion of the Moderators of the forum.  They judge what is an outing and what is not.

wow,so I guess a model running up over a sidewalk in her car,hitting a guy ripping off her mirror he was hit so hard and leaving the scene after he was almost killed is outing even tho it was all local news links

his profile has been removed from mm

guess the moderators have never had a family member hit by a car

Guess no one sees this becoming yet another thread to scare some models from working with photographers

zaxpix wrote:
"A Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine."

If he has no priors, with a good lawyer, he'll get probation and a lighter wallet.

Z.

Well, maybe not.  With 17 victims alleged so far, that's going to be tougher.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Wow!   Why is the OP so hot to nail this photographer who "allegedly" video taping models without them knowing?  I believe the OP has something personal against him?  As for you, you did nothing wrong but remind him of the rules.  It's also against the rules to plaster the same stuff all over the forums.

This is hilarious I guess ignorance is bliss huh? I never met the guy. I knew a lot of girls who shot with  him and loved his work. He was  very well known in the area and in my opinion did great work. I have no animosity towards him or his work.

It's disgusting to think though that no telling how many girls who loved shooting with him were unknowingly recorded and what he did with the stuff afterwards. So for you Patrick to make this about me, is laughable. I personally know two he did shoot with who liked him and are shocked and now have to call the police to find out if they were on his drives or sold to some porn site.

My posts (which I did not plaster this all over) I put one in the general discussion, one in the model forum, and one in the photography forum. So that each may be seen by all who may not go into the other forums. To try and help models who have shot with  him be aware so that they may protect themselves and find out if they too have been violated..

So for those who are complaining about me posting this. I could care less about your opinions. This isn't about you or me it's about the models who have worked with him and their privacy.

zaxpix wrote:
"A Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine."

If he has no priors, with a good lawyer, he'll get probation and a lighter wallet.

Z.

With comments like this it's like you promote conduct or think what he did is ok. Like it's no big deal. That's pretty sad

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Well, maybe not.  With 17 victims alleged so far, that's going to be tougher.

This is what always amazes me.  All of the sudden girls start coming out of everywhere saying they were video taped.  I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, I am just wondering why girls wait and wait, then suddenly so many claim to have been violated.

Sometimes they say it was years ago, but still they didn't say anything.

zaxpix wrote:
"A Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine."

If he has no priors, with a good lawyer, he'll get probation and a lighter wallet.

Z.

Unique Imaging wrote:
With comments like this it's like you promote conduct or think what he did is ok. Like it's no big deal. That's pretty sad

I believe you are reading something into that reply, and I am not sure what would be your reason.

The reply was stating something that is possibly a fact (in  the legal world), and he did not say he wished or hoped that would be the outcome.

....edit.. Why am I now getting the feeling your motives are a bit more "questionable" that at first.

You have already found him guilty, that is for sure.

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Well, maybe not.  With 17 victims alleged so far, that's going to be tougher.

Well, maybe so. Do you really think that the town of Fredricksburg Va.[with towns across the country laying off municipal workers due to budget restraints] will spend the money to prove guilt in seventeen different misdemeanor cases?

They'll lump it all together and do a plea deal.

If he has no priors and they have a pre-trial intervention program he'll likely get that plus a fine.

Z.

Photography by BE wrote:

What?  You are bumping a thread that is getting replies every few minutes?

Photography by BE wrote:

This is what always amazes me.  All of the sudden girls start coming out of everywhere saying they were video taped.  I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, I am just wondering why girls wait and wait, then suddenly so many claim to have been violated.

Sometimes they say it was years ago, but still they didn't say anything.

What are you talking about? Read the article.. No girls came forward the police found evidence of 17 other girls having this been done to them too.

"While in a changing room inside Faulkner’s home, police said, the women noticed a camera on a tripod with a light on, indicating that it was recording.

The camera was covered with clothes.

After finishing the shoot, the women spoke to a city officer about the camera in the changing room. The officer spoke to Faulkner Saturday and got permission to look inside, but did not find the camera.

Bledsoe said the case was turned over to Detective Wayne Hunnicutt, who interviewed the women on Monday and got a search warrant for the home.

Police searched Faulkner’s home Tuesday and seized numerous items, including pictures of the Spotsylvania woman in the changing room.

Police also seized 10 computer hard drives, a laptop computer, a Nikon camera, various VHS tapes, small video tapes and numerous memory drives.

The items have been turned over to a state police forensics expert for closer examination.

Bledsoe said police are in the process of contacting the women identified so far about what was found.

Anyone who believes they may have also been a victim is asked to call Hunnicutt at 540-654-5753.

According to listings on the Internet, Faulkner has worked as a photographer for more than 30 years and his portfolio lists examples of various types of photography, including nude.

In addition to Hooters, Faulkner lists Playboy and Maxim among the companies he has done work for."

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Well, maybe not.  With 17 victims alleged so far, that's going to be tougher.

Photography by BE wrote:
This is what always amazes me.  All of the sudden girls start coming out of everywhere saying they were video taped.  I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, I am just wondering why girls wait and wait, then suddenly so many claim to have been violated.

Sometimes they say it was years ago, but still they didn't say anything.

Actually, I might be wrong, but as I recall, they didn't "come out of the woodwork."  Rather, the police found them on the tapes and informed them of the filming.  They didn't report it because they weren't aware of it.

Photography by BE wrote:
There can be more problems than going to jail.

Oh I agree with you!  The actual percentage of photographers getting busted is small, and those that are prosecuted even smaller, but the rumor mill will ruin many.  It's this "rush to judgement" that I find so lacking in common sense and even offensive.

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:

Well, maybe not.  With 17 victims alleged so far, that's going to be tougher.

Ugh, make that 18 victims. I just remembered going to a Hooters calender audition at this guys house. When I came out in my thong with my hairy beer gut and junk hanging out, he politely asked me to leave. Yea, I think I saw a camera in the dressing room with the red light light blinking on it, but I wasn't sure what it was so I just smiled.

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Actually, I might be wrong, but as I recall, they didn't "come out of the woodwork."  Rather, the police found them on the tapes and informed them of the filming.  They didn't report it because they weren't aware of it.

My mistake.  Thanks for the information.

Unique Imaging wrote:
What are you talking about? Read the article.. No girls came forward the police found evidence of 17 other girls having this been done to them too.

I already admitted my mistake in making that comment.

With that said, I hope you will edit your post to not include that much from the article.  That is cause for locking a thread... it is considered copyright violation.

A link will suffice.    You did that already.

Unique Imaging wrote:

This is hilarious I guess ignorance is bliss huh? I never met the guy. I knew a lot of girls who shot with  him and loved his work. He was  very well known in the area and in my opinion did great work. I have no animosity towards him or his work.

It's disgusting to think though that no telling how many girls who loved shooting with him were unknowingly recorded and what he did with the stuff afterwards. So for you Patrick to make this about me, is laughable. I personally know two he did shoot with who liked him and are shocked and now have to call the police to find out if they were on his drives or sold to some porn site.

My posts (which I did not plaster this all over) I put one in the general discussion, one in the model forum, and one in the photography forum. So that each may be seen by all who may not go into the other forums. To try and help models who have shot with  him be aware so that they may protect themselves and find out if they too have been violated..

So for those who are complaining about me posting this. I could care less about your opinions. This isn't about you or me it's about the models who have worked with him and their privacy.

Regardless of what you think of me, posting in three different sections on the same subject is against the forum rules.  Secondly, it's an issue that limited to your area.  Models and photographers on the West coast who don't know the photographer are not in need of knowing about the incident.  You bumping the thread which did not need to be bumped is also against the rules, but this thread is busy anyway.  I'm not attacking you.  I am saying that you are "white knighting" and perhaps you have not been here posting long enough to know the difference?

ArtisticVisions wrote:

wow,so I guess a model running up over a sidewalk in her car,hitting a guy ripping off her mirror he was hit so hard and leaving the scene after he was almost killed is outing even tho it was all local news links

his profile has been removed from mm

guess the moderators have never had a family member hit by a car

Guess no one sees this becoming yet another thread to scare some models from working with photographers

If a model or photographer gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and kills someone who is an intern in State government, that is "news" and it did happen in Atlanta Georgia.  If a model kills someone and gets on the National news, and her profile is removed, then I'd say it's not an outting to talk about it here.  Some may or may not agree.

Unique Imaging wrote:
With comments like this it's like you promote conduct or think what he did is ok. Like it's no big deal. That's pretty sad

And what you promoting? Your own agenda? Local good ole boy photographer rivalry down there? What's really going on in Fredricksburg/Richmond. C'mon tell us.



Z.

Photography by BE wrote:
What?  You are bumping a thread that is getting replies every few minutes?

Paige Morgan wrote:
The rapid fire back and forth had not yet started when I posted that. It's certainly in full swing now.

Just fyi.. there was a post on the hour, then 13, 16 and 18 minutes after the hour before you bumped it at 22 minutes after the hour.   

Not that it is a big deal. 

zaxpix wrote:
"A Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine."

If he has no priors, with a good lawyer, he'll get probation and a lighter wallet.

Z.

If he was capturing audio, it becomes 17 federal felony charges.

Luminos wrote:

If he was capturing audio, it becomes 17 federal felony charges.

If the "Feds" even think it's worth their time. They have bigger fish to fry.

Let the locals handle it.

Z.

Luminos wrote:
============ VA does not from what I can find out.

http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/20 … 386.1.html

Excerpt from the VA law:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally videotape, photograph, or film any nonconsenting person or create any videographic or still image record by any means whatsoever of the nonconsenting person if (i) that person is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location;

...................


A violation of subsection A shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Unique Imaging wrote:

What are you talking about? Read the article.. No girls came forward the police found evidence of 17 other girls having this been done to them too.

"While in a changing room inside Faulkner’s home, police said, the women noticed a camera on a tripod with a light on, indicating that it was recording.

The camera was covered with clothes.

After finishing the shoot, the women spoke to a city officer about the camera in the changing room. The officer spoke to Faulkner Saturday and got permission to look inside, but did not find the camera.

Bledsoe said the case was turned over to Detective Wayne Hunnicutt, who interviewed the women on Monday and got a search warrant for the home.

Police searched Faulkner’s home Tuesday and seized numerous items, including pictures of the Spotsylvania woman in the changing room.

Police also seized 10 computer hard drives, a laptop computer, a Nikon camera, various VHS tapes, small video tapes and numerous memory drives.

The items have been turned over to a state police forensics expert for closer examination.

Bledsoe said police are in the process of contacting the women identified so far about what was found.

Anyone who believes they may have also been a victim is asked to call Hunnicutt at 540-654-5753.

According to listings on the Internet, Faulkner has worked as a photographer for more than 30 years and his portfolio lists examples of various types of photography, including nude.

In addition to Hooters, Faulkner lists Playboy and Maxim among the companies he has done work for."

There is nothing to indicate guilt in any of this you've posted.  The man allegedly may have done something wrong and the police are investigating.  I understand that the police there locally are working on this case.  I understand that they might appreciate the publics help in locating more models who might have been videotaped without their knowledge, but this is not a National issue.  This is localized to your area, so one thread should be enough. 

It seems to me that you have already judged this photographer to be guilty?  Why?