Women secretly recorded by pickup ‘artists’ have little legal means to fight back

[Tennis]

Casey Grace Ferneyhough and her friends were enjoying a walk through Trinity-Bellwoods Park about five years ago when a man sauntered by and began hitting on them. Persistently.

It wasn’t until the man moved on to another group of girls that Ferneyhough noticed a second man following from a few metres away with a camera. Two months later, she discovered the YouTube video the pair made of their attempts to pick up other women in the park that day.

Though Ferneyhough, now 22, didn’t make the final cut of the video, she still felt “almost violated.”

“It was a breach of privacy to know that my conversation with this guy was being recorded and I could have been online,” she said. “I was underage too, and I’m pretty sure we were in our school uniform at the time, so it was already creepy.”

As nasty of a surprise as it may be to find a secretly recorded video of you posted online, there’s very little that women in them can do about it.

The issue of recording people in public without their consent made headlines this month after Calgary police arrested a man they allege posted voyeuristic photos and videos of various women to Twitter under the name ‘CanadaCreep.’

Jeffrey Robert Williamson, 42, was rearrested Friday on child pornography charges.

‘CanadaCreep’ veered into illegal territory by shooting video up women’s skirts, a criminal offence. The account had racked up about 17,000 followers and had been active for a year before it was suspended.

But recording someone in public space isn’t illegal. Though a civil case might be possible, it would be difficult to win, said Bernice Karn, a lawyer with the law firm Cassels Brock.

“The behaviour would have to be fairly outrageous for there to be any likelihood of success,” Karn said in an email to the Star.

The techniques used in videos made by self-styled “pickup artists” are more subtle, presenting more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.

More than 77,000 people follow 30-year-old Vadim Dorfman’s Toronto-based YouTube channel, which is dedicated to teaching men how to seduce prospective dates and improve their lives using real-life examples.

Though some of the women know the camera is rolling, many have no idea. Dorfman and his business partner, 24-year-old Austen Sangfroid, often use a hidden cameraman or a GoPro planted in their apartment.

Most videos on the channel show one of them talking to women on the street.

But in one titled “How To Prepare Your Place For Sex (with real examples),” women appear in various stages of undress with strategic blurring of their faces and breasts. Dorfman confirmed that not all know they’re being recorded, but that he tries to hide their identities as much as possible.

“Protecting people’s (identities) and respecting their rights to privacy is of the utmost importance,” Dorfman said via email.

Since the blurring obscures their identities, posting such footage doesn’t appear to be illegal, said Toronto police Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook.

Though the pair say they recognize the subjects of their videos might find it “creepy,” they say secrecy is necessary to prove the product works — a product they say has helped change their customers’ lives, giving them confidence and lifting them out of depression.

In the four years since Dorfman began posting videos using the account, called “Honest Signalz,” it’s grown into a full-time business. He and Sangfroid charge thousands of dollars for in-person workshops.

Despite Dorfman and Sangfroid making derogatory comments about women Dorfman said his channel actually teaches respect and empathy for the opposite sex.

“It’s just boys’ locker room humour,” Dorfman added. “It’s tongue-in-cheek.”

YouTube didn’t answer queries about whether it has received complaints about Honest Signalz in the past.

Though Dorfman and Sangfroid sometimes ask permission when filming some of their more comedic videos, they said they don’t do so with others. The secrecy maintains the authenticity of the women’s reactions, they said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ight-back.html

Really sad. Have you taken such classes?

What kind of person would resort to such means. It is quite troubling that there is a market for this sort of thing! What next you wonder...

[Xargoth6634]

Nope I have not, because I'm not a total creeper.

[Deleted]

Boys will be boys.

[GreenJesus]

The problem is that "is it illegal to video tape what anyone in public could have seen?". Although there are outliers like this case it can set a bad precedent of anyone filming in public could be sued for videotaping someone by-chance and ended up on the internet.

It would raise the question of "do I need permission from every single person I see in public while filming to not get sued?"

[Deleted]

The problem is that "is it illegal to video tape what anyone in public could have seen?". Although there are outliers like this case it can set a bad precedent of anyone filming in public could be sued for videotaping someone by-chance and ended up on the internet.

It would raise the question of "do I need permission from every single person I see in public while filming to not get sued?"

Imagine videotaping a crime and having to ask or be denied permission from the assailant. XD

[Tennis]

The problem is that "is it illegal to video tape what anyone in public could have seen?". Although there are outliers like this case it can set a bad precedent of anyone filming in public could be sued for videotaping someone by-chance and ended up on the internet.

It would raise the question of "do I need permission from every single person I see in public while filming to not get sued?"

Well this isn't exactly an ordinary case. They aren't using these videos for leisure but rather to exploit these women.

[Protean]

Well this isn't exactly an ordinary case. They aren't using these videos for leisure but rather to exploit these women.

exploit how?

[Zig Zug]

exploit how?

By being the subject of another inflammatory thread that continues to cast women as hapless victims.

The reality of the situation is, it doesn't really matter, at all. If you don't want some one filming you - remove yourself from the situation.

If a person wants to improve their ability to seduce women (which is a hugely subjective and seems to be cast as an objectively negative ((shaming male sexual desire)) term) so be it.

People find ways to improve their lot in life through all kinds of means. If some one has the means to spend money to receive coach they may find valuable so be it. I wonder if OP holds plastic surgery or those undergarments that reshape the body in similar esteem?

Maybe they become a better person all around - and come to the realization to get in better relationships, you need to be a higher quality person. (Which is the binding theory behind all this pick up stuff).

Or maybe they become douche bags who wear Ed Hardy T-Shirts and buy $20 drinks at trendy bars to get laughed at by mediocre women.

This isn't exploitation. Wearing clothing made by women who are paid less than $1 a day is exploitation.

This seems more of a privileged annoyance.

[zhero]

yes, men and women need to have 10 foot walls separating them, in fact, we should be forced back into segregation until this problem solves itself. no woman should ever have to deal with a man that thinks she is cute, men should know better than to approach any woman and try to talk to them.

[Tennis]

The law is not meant to be handled through exceptions.

Are you a lawyer, judge or law professor?

[Rudkobing]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ight-back.html
What next you wonder...

One can only wonder.

[Independent voter]

At some point in the US, a person you are videoing for commercial purposes has to sign a release or you can't use that video. That works well when a huge corporation videos you but it might not work when a poor person videos you. It's hard to collect from a poor person so it might not be worth suing.

News people don't need releases but many non-news video'ers do.



Do I always Have to Have a Release? The answer to that question is: "It depends."(You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?) Even if you're not starting a production company or trying to sell a shot to a stock media site, if you plan to use images of unknown people for something later on down the road you might need a release, so it's a good idea to always get one up front.

https://www.videomaker.com/article/f....vUKCN22I.dpuf

[shadowdasher]

[url]Though Ferneyhough, now 22, didn’t make the final cut of the video, she still felt “almost violated.”

Everyone's a victim.

[Theoris]

Pickup artists are scumbuckets. What else is new.

[Grimbold21]

Are you a lawyer, judge or law professor?

He's as much as a lawyer as you are a honest poster, Tennistroll

[Sunseeker]

Welcome to being in public?

[medievalman1]

Are you a lawyer, judge or law professor?

Are they wrong? Don't deflect the comment.

[Akka]

I'm happy to live in a civilized country where it IS, in fact, illegal.
But well, anglo-saxon culture doesn't deem anything worthy to be protected if it isn't bringing in money, so you're out of luck.

[ro9ue]

I think if you go to someones place/private space and they record you without your consent that's a big problem. However, the public thing seems to be a bit in the gray area even though, yes it's really unethical.

[Xirrohon]

recording someone in public space isn’t illegal.

blurring obscures their identities, posting such footage doesn’t appear to be illegal, said Toronto police Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook.

Maybe what they are doing can be seen by some as being amoral, even the article says they arent doing anything illegal.