Biker rallie's

[Charlie Drizzle]

Taken at the Smoke-Out V, June 25th, 2004.

[fg420]

Another awesome post. Thanks Charlie. Keep 'em coming

[Charlie Drizzle]

These were taken May 17th, 2002, at Myrtle Beach, SC, the second Saturday of Harley Bike Week. I also stay over for Black Bike Week which follows. I'll probably post some of them also at some point. Harley Week is usually about the tits, Black Bike Week is all about the butts. BTW, the tall blonde, probably 6'2", in the last five pictures is a former Penthouse Pet of the Month and was the current Miss Easyriders. She was there representing Blue Nun Choppers and hawking her wares on vendor row. I asked her about flashing for us and she started off about how she was a former Pet and such(that's in the first photo of her), sort of arrogant, as if it was beneath her dignity to flash. A biker in the crowd spoke up, "That's okay, he's already got a picture of my ol' lady with natural perky ones. He needs a picture of fake hanging ones for comparison." Her 'escort'(you can see him in one picture carrying a Penthouse bag) got all jacked up over that comment. I turned and walked away, afraid I was going to burst out laughing. She saw me later and called me to the side of the hauler, and, as if she was doing me a great big favor, she turned toward the hauler so nobody else could see and gave me a shot of her tits. It's strange what a few minutes of fame can do to people. As you'll notice in the pictures, she had a rather flat butt and stretch marks on her saddlebags. The airbrush people did wonders in the wares she was hawking.

[Charlie Drizzle]

Taken at the Smoke-Out V, June 25th, 2004.

[Charlie Drizzle]

These were taken May 17th, 2002, at what was then called 'HD Spokes'. There has always been biker bars at Myrtle Beach. But they have always been rather small and, unless you were a hardcore biker, a lot of people were literally afraid to go near them. In the 90's, South of 'Myrtle Beach', something of a 'mega' biker bar was opened. It was called "Suck, Bang, Blow". It had a burn out pit, a large bar, smaller cabanas, and large patio on top. During Bike Week vendors came and set up on the grounds and nearby. People poured in. Years ago 'The Strand' consisted of 'Cherry Grove', 'Ocean Drive', 'Crescent', 'Atlantic', 'Myrtle', 'Surfside', and other beaches. But as 'The Strand' grew in population the beaches began to merge and no one really knew where one beach ended and another began. The beaches are now called 'Myrtle', 'North Myrtle', and 'South Myrtle'. Only 'Atlantic Beach', a privately owned beach about 3 blocks wide, remains isolated and breaks up 'The Strand', over 30 miles of public beach, with 'Myrtle' being in the middle..

Anyway, the original "Suck, Bang, Blow" drew huge crowds but created traffic problems. Plus, a lot of people didn't want to drive to almost the Southern most point of the strand to party and then take a chance driving the distance back to their lodging. Around 2000 a "Suck, Bang, Blow II" was opened at 'Myrtle Beach' on the Hwy#17 By-Pass. This still didn't take care of the crowd 17 miles North. People saw the opportunity and opened "HD Spokes" outside the old 'Cherry Grove' beach, the Northern most point of the strand, on Hwy#9 toward Loris. It's huge, inside and out. It has 7 cabanas outside that serves drinks and a huge burn-out pit, probably 80'x40', and an exit ramp probably 75 yards long from the burn-out pit to the road. There's signs that say 'No Burn-outs' and 'Exit ramp 5 mph'. But of course everyone knows that's for legal purposes. The wet t-shirt contest is held in the burn-out pit. You'll be able to see some of the tire marks in the later pictures.

Everyone knew what the 'HD' in "HD Spokes" stood for. Harley Davidson threatened to sue them so they had to change their name after the first year. But it was called "HD Spokes" when these pictures were taken in 2002.

[Charlie Drizzle]

Some more from "HD Spokes", May 17th, 2002.

[Charlie Drizzle]

Some more from "HD Spokes", May 17th, 2002. The wet t-shirt contest was about to begin. The contest was held in the burn-out pit.

[Charlie Drizzle]

From "HD Spokes", May 17th, 2002. More of the wet t-shirt contest. The contest was held in the burn-out pit.

Folks, I gotta admit it, I blew it. I'm usually privileged enough to have good access to most biker events in the Southeast. I get access backstage and such prior to and after events. That's usually real important because it allows me to 'set-up' for shots. I know what the field of girls looks like. One of the worst things that can happen is to run out of film at the wrong time. In the early 90's I carried 2 film SLR's and would load fresh 36 exposure rolls before things like a wet T-shirt event. In the mid 90's I started carrying 1 SLR and a digital(my first was a Sony Mavica 90 that recorded on floppy disc, boy, was that a piece of crap). By this time, 2002, I was carrying a film SLR and an Olympus E-10 digital SLR. The Olympus E-10 was a good camera but the buffer would only handle 4 pics while it was writing. And Olympus didn't make an external battery pack so it would sometimes take a few seconds for the battery to recover for the next flash.

Anyway, I had scanned the field of girls prior to the event and identified my primary points of interest. In hindsight I really blew it. For some reason I failed to recognize how pretty the brunette on the right in the first picture is. I think we, as men, pay too much attention to youth and blondes. I know I do. I got plenty of pictures of the 2 blondes. But I don't have any of the brunette as the primary point of interest. I'm sorry because, IMHO she's just flat out daggum pretty. I think you'll agree. She's not as young as the blondes but there'd not be any disgrace in taking her anywhere.

[northwest91]

love all thses thongs and older women flashing amazing

[Charlie Drizzle]

Originally Posted by Toronaga

Charlie, I'm curious if you should be tagging these pics with "photo/scan by". If every single pic you post is taken by you, then sure, it's fine (and they may well be, I've not looked at all your pics). I'm a photographer and I watermark every single pic I take. If however you are mixing in photos you took with photos you scanned, you could be asking for problems. In the US, the photographer automatically has all rights to the picture unless a release is signed giving you those rights. The "photo/scan" tag is pretty broad and if it is on a pic that you did not personally take but only scanned, it could cause you legal problems. Photography has paid my way in this world and I'm proud of my skills as a photographer. Despite what most people think, not everyone can do it. If I came across a picture that I know I took and someone else watermarked it as theirs and was making money from it, I would give their info to my attorney. He lives for stuff like that. If it was on a little site like this and no money was being made by the guy, I doubt I would mess with it, but rest assured, there are enough pricks in the world that would. Didn't mean to be an ass by posting this; you seem like a great guy and I just thought I would throw out my 2 cents if it might save you some headaches.

Toronaga, I don't consider you "...an ass..." for your input. I respect and digest all post, replies, input, and concerns, and appreciate your 2¢. To address your concerns, I've acknowledged several times on this site that these are my pics. Even in the post that you replied to I said "... my stuff." and "...I've got tens of thousands of original pics on various subjects.", and "...my pics.", and "...I started tagging my pics ...", and "...tagging my pics with...", and "...posted on OneClickChicks.com...".

While your concerns are legit, so are mine, even more so. The "/" in "Photo/Scan", while it may be considered broad by some, is legally interpreted to mean 'and' or 'or', or 'both'. In the case of my 'film' photos, they are my photos 'and' I scanned them. In the case of my digital photos, they're simply my photos.

Some people don't like the 'watermarks' or 'tags', they're actually banned by this site unless posted by the 'owner' of the pics. In reality, I'm doing the 'downloader' a favor if he wants to post them elsewhere(i.e. 'Flickr'). The 'downloader' can use the "Posted@OneClickChicks.com" to demonstrate that he obtained them legally, posted by the owner on a free site. It's the 'downloader/reposter's' firewall. Whereas, if a 'downloader/reposter' should happen to post a picture here or elsewhere that has been cropped to remove the tag, he could find himself/herself in deep doo-doo. That's why/how Alex has absolved himself of all responsibility here. Otherwise he could find himself in violation of the propogation of copyrighted material. He and the moderators remove all watermarked pics. Any 'cropped' pictures that are posted become the responsibility of the poster. To their credit, some people(i.e. 'Klondike') add a comment like "Found these on the Flickr" to their post. As long as they maintain their links and the pictures remain on the linked site, they've shifted the legal responsibility.

I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to know about all issues regarding copyright. But I do retain a lawyer and take issue with your comment, "In the US, the photographer automatically has all rights...". If I were you("I'm a photographer..."), I think I would revisit this issue with your lawyer in regards to "expectation of privacy", "contracted photography", and "model releases". In regards to "expectation of privacy" many people here could find themselves in court for 'upskirt' and 'downblouse' pictures. The photographer could face legal issues for invasion of privacy and has no legal right to those pictures. If someone simply flashes for you, they may still have an expectation of privacy. That's why in most of my series of pictures(i.e. the one you replied to) I've always got a picture or two, even if it's not posted(I don't ever post them all) that either shows other people in the background or forefront. The subjects have 'no expectations of privacy'. In regards to "contracted photography", if someone pays the photographer to take the pictures, the payer owns the rights to the pictures, not the photographer. In regards to "model releases", even if the photographer pays a model to pose, he needs a "model release" acknowledging ownership and rights to 'distribution'. The 'rights to distribution' is key. It's possible to 'own' the pictures and not have the 'rights to distribution'.

I'm an amateur photographer even though I've been doing it for close to 50 years. I started out taking pictures of car wrecks and such and submitting them to the local newspapers, LOL. Again, I appreciate your concerns and I HOPE I've got all my bases covered.