Etiquette
Private means private
Posting a judge's clip to a forum or social feed exposes their likeness without agreement, and it is the fastest way to lose access to every professional judge.
Guides on Etiquette: Being declined, Nothing exotic, Opening well
Do not repost a commissioned review anywhere public. The clip is yours to keep and watch, which is different from yours to publish: a forum, a subreddit or a group chat that is really a broadcast puts a judge's face, voice and performance in front of an audience they never agreed to.
What you actually bought
A commissioned review is a private deliverable made for one person. The judge keeps their likeness and voice; what you get is the right to watch it, not the right to distribute it. That split is not a technicality - it is the entire reason a judge can build a public persona, take on identifiable work, and still control where it ends up.
Every judge who accepts a commission is trusting that the clip stays where it landed. Break that once and the judge has no way of knowing it will not happen again, from you or from anyone reading the post you made.
Why it is worse than it sounds
A clip that is quietly re-shared with one friend is a boundary stretch. A clip posted to a forum is that judge's face, in a register they performed for a stranger's private use, now attached to a thread with a comment section, indexed and forwarded indefinitely. That exposure carries real odds: in a 2020 survey of 10,093 US adults, Pew Research Center (2021) found 41% had personally experienced online harassment, and 25% more severe forms such as stalking or physical threats.
This is a live-out-loud version of a problem the industry works hard to avoid on the input side. Photos you send a judge are meant to be handled as confidential and time-limited, and a reposted clip does the mirror-image damage: instead of your material leaking, the judge's does, at your hand, after they trusted you not to. It is also unrelated to what a leaderboard or a public rating thread does, since a commissioned review is not that, and was never meant to end up anywhere near one.
What it costs you
Judges talk, platforms keep records, and a buyer who reposts a clip does not get a quiet pass the next time they message someone new. Reputable judges check a buyer's history before accepting a commission the same way any freelancer vets a new client, and a repost is the kind of thing that shows up. One post can close doors with judges you have never even worked with.
This is a sharper consequence than anything on the input side of the market. An automated tool that scores a photo carries no likeness risk for the system itself - there is no one on the other end whose face is at stake, which is part of why privacy there is framed entirely around your own material rather than anyone else's. A commissioned review has a real person in it, and that changes what "keep this private" is actually protecting.
Why "just the good parts" is not a safe exception
A common instinct is to think a short, flattering clip - a few seconds where a judge said something glowing - is harmless to post, because it shows the judge in a good light.
It is not the content that is the problem, it is the exposure. A judge's face and voice, attached to this kind of material and posted where it can be found, screenshotted, and re-shared past your control, carries the same risk whether the clip is generous or blunt. A flattering fifteen seconds circulating without the judge's knowledge is still their likeness loose in a context they never agreed to, and it still shows up the same way in the history a future judge might check before accepting your next commission.
What to do if you want to share the reaction
Talk about the experience without the clip - the register, how it felt, whether it was worth it. That is useful to other buyers and costs the judge nothing.
If you want a record for yourself, keep it exactly where it is: on your device, watched privately, the way you would treat a scanned document from any professional service, or a stored measurement you took for your own reference and never had reason to publish. Wanting to compare your result against a public number, the kind you might see on a scoring tool's own listings, is a different impulse entirely - those numbers were built to be shared, and a judge's clip of you was not.
The rule is small and absolute: watch it, keep it, do not post it.
It is also the same expectation Rate Cock sets for every commissioned clip on the platform: private by default, and private by agreement, not by luck.