Your video, Huge Bear Surprises Crew on EcoBubble Photo Shoot in BC, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've met a few heavyweight jazz musicians-Dizzy Gillespie, Marcus Roberts, Sonny Rollins, McCoy Tyner, Herbie Mann, uhhh...Met B.B. KIng after a show (all these are in passing after shows) Partied with Ike Willis a couple times in different states (guitar player for Zappa for years)
Played 3 holes of golf onna photo shoot with Nolan Ryan when he pitched for the Astros.
Met a few rock stars, Met and spoke with Roger Daltrey when I was 11 years old atta Mall record shop in Dallas(1976 NA Tour, last with Kieth Moon) , my mom was standing in line to get her albums autographed, and then when it was her turn, she grabbed Daltrey by his head and hi-jacked him with a wet one, got a picture of that one...Daltrey looked overwhelmed and looked over at me and asked, "That your mum?!"

Most impressive star-saturation came Labor Day weekend, 1975 in Atoka Oklahoma atta 3-day outdoor concert event...camp out-I was 10, found a backstage pass onna chain, and wandered around backstage and on buses with a fuckload of country stars.
Waylon Jennings, Jerry Jeff Walker, can't remember em all, I was a little kid but i remember a lotta musicians tripping on me running around backstage-Some thought I was just a roadie's kid.
Met Jerry Lee Lewis backstage there....

If this were more about "Behind the scenes of a photo shoot" or something, perhaps I'd be more inclined to say it can stay, but as @luxury_pie pointed out, it's described solely as "sexy moments," which means the video's "sole intent is to cause sexual arousal."

>> ^Sagemind:

Ya, I saw this on CNN - More like Hillary Clinton doesn't react to news of Gaddafi's capture.
Hard up for news stories I think they are, Hmmm?...


Hard up for news? Maybe.. but I also think this is an interesting glimpse into the life/work of a high level politician. We hear breaking news from CNN or Al Jazeera. HClint gets a text from the CIA. We see the news as a a curiosity, not terribly relevant to our daily lives. HClint has to decide how the US Government is going to react, and whether to proceed with her interview, or photo shoot, or whatever she was doing. ..reminds me of BushBaby deciding to continue reading a story to school children when he learned of the 9/11 attacks.

>> ^Payback:

Oooooo, hawt woman with proper gun etiquette at 0:18... unlike damn near EVERYONE else...


The guns are props, the idea is to be able to take a picture from an angle you normally would not be in or want to be in if the gun was real. Or in this case to take a shot for a video of a fake photo shoot.

>> ^legacy0100:

I just love the dull, colorless expression on the model's face. This is just another day of photo shoot to her lol


After two hours of Colbert laughing and tossing his hair, everyone is on the verge of death.

EDIT: BTW this is about some magazine http://www.projectmag.com/

And the model is apparently Valerie Tymoczko.

I just love the dull, colorless expression on the model's face. This is just another day of photo shoot to her lol

I had a male friend years ago whose hands had been spotted somehow, and he was asked to come in for a photo shoot.

He did gardening without gloves the day before.

The agent just looked at him and said something like -- you don't want success, do you?

I would find being around this woman annoying, however, she is making a good living. I just hope she has a life outside of protecting her hands.

Sooo...are they doing some geological surveys or just a photo shoot?

>> ^youdiejoe:

This poster (NSFW) was included inside the album "Jazz" where this song hails from. The footage in the video was from the photo shoot to promote the single "Fat Bottom Girls".
As a young lad in his teens, I thanked Queen for this lovely gift, almost every night...


Yeah, I remember having to hide that poster from my parents. Also saw an interview that said when they returned all the bikes to where they rented them from they had to pay for new bicycle seats.

I question the judgement of all the people involved in deciding to do this photo shoot of a 17 y/o in one the most public places in the world and while she is wearing those tiny shorts.

In defense of the lady who confronted Joey; It seems to me that she did not just randomly confront him for filming the girl. I think that she is her mother or grandmother and she looked over his shoulder and saw him zooming in on her crotch. He was also walking back and forth trying to get a good angle on the girl. I would be pissed off also, but I think it was still a very bad idea to have that girl (child) out on a street in NYC flashing her crotch.

I have a friend that has been good friends with Joey since high school. I'm gonna get him to ask him why in the hell he was filming her ass to begin with. He is flaming gay. I would assume that since he is part of the whole Howard Stern Wack Pack, that he was probably trying to stir up crap to bring attention to himself so he could have something to talk about on the radio show or maybe trying to get footage for the show.

I've looked up his pics online - I could take him.

There is a big difference between high school swim team camel toe and this? I don't see it. This young lady is engaged in photo shooting - showing off her gymnastic abilities in an iconic setting. She isn't intending to display and frame her snatch - that's just how you see it. Fucking perv.

I guess if you want to nitpick about the attire of a man lurking about a children's playground, you are purposely obfuscating the issue. When you live your life online, I guess real life issues changes your perspective on things.

Who said anything about vietnam? Do you know who the Phelps family is?

Too bad if you think she is an adult, she IS a minor - and if not legally, then practically. She says she's 17. How old are you? You fucking perv.

Regarding your cock and balls - there's a great deal difference between glancing at ass and filming a crotch in public. If you don't understand that I don't have the time nor inclination to explain it to you. And how would I even know that this perv was filming her crotch? How many handheld cameras still have an eye-piece for viewing? Most have a screen. Anyone who glanced over and saw his screen would see what he was doing. He's a fucking perv. Whether he did this to 'provoke' as an aspect of his professional persona, or if he's just a perv normally is irrelevant. It was inappropriate.

Porn shoot? In public? Surely you know this would be illegal (and for a good reason). "Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels."

Pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl? She visibly IS a poor, innocent young girl. She's there with what looks like her family and a professional photographer. This is not a sexual display, this is an artistic endeavour meant to focus on her artistic ability, not her snatch you perv.

I've studied the polarizing effect of the internet - where anonymity and the digital interface leads to people upholding stringent, abstract principles with little regard for real-world practicality and social norms. This seems to be a textbook case of this trend. "She is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg" does not equal "She wants people to look at her snatch - you can tell because she is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg".

Remind me to never leave DannyM with my kids.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Concerned Citizens Interrupt Perv Videographer, photo, shoot, goober, nyc' to 'troll, pervert, photo shoot, goober, nyc, joey boots, ballerina' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^residue:

ok, how about the beach. some weirdo is filming your wife's crotch at the beach. I don't care how hard you try to defend it, she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she's not there to get her crotch filmed and it's rude
or to keep things simple what if that was your daughter doing the photo shoot and you were standing there. I really bet you would see that guy filming and think "yup, that's fine with me"
>> ^jwray:
>> ^residue:
Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.
The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.


Upskirt is completely different from filming what everyone else in times square can see.



They've just gotta be more covert about it. It only causes harm if somebody realizes they're doing it and gets all distressed about it. If he was filming from 200M away with a telephoto lens I probably wouldn't notice.

ok, how about the beach. some weirdo is filming your wife's crotch at the beach. I don't care how hard you try to defend it, she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she's not there to get her crotch filmed and it's rude

or to keep things simple what if that was your daughter doing the photo shoot and you were standing there. I really bet you would see that guy filming and think "yup, that's fine with me"

>> ^jwray:

>> ^residue:
Actually, all the people defending the cameramen are hypocrites for different reasons. I guarantee that if some asshat started trying to film up your girlfriend's/wife's/daughter's dress you would not be defending his right to do so.
The argument of "well if she's going to wear that in public she deserves it" falls apart pretty quick when it turns personal. The people offended in this video are just good enough people that they have genuine concern over strangers.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Everyone one of you shouting "Hear hear," to those calling the guy filming a pervert, are wading around in a pool of hypocrisy.
If you saw this girl stretching out on a street corner in short shorts you know you'd look and "Her artistic abilities as a ballerina," would not be what you were thinking about.
Either it's not ok for him to be filming her crotch in public AND it's not ok for her to be spreading her legs for long periods of time on a street corner in public -=OR=- the opposite is true.


Upskirt is completely different from filming what everyone else in times square can see.