I decline to comment on the morality of knowingly asking someone to participate in something with hidden, additional motives. Instead, let's look at this from a "legal" angle. (No, I am not a lawyer. But I am a video producer.)
The question to ask is: Did each actor sign a model release? Every video producer I know requires anyone appearing in his work to sign a model release. The wording usually includes a clause that states, more or less, that "I own the rights to this video footage and I can do whatever I want with any part of it and you can't do a damn thing about it". If the actors signed a similarly worded model release... too bad for them, should they find out that foot freaks are digging them for more than their acting skills.
But they are all grown men. They should be smart enough to understand what it was that they had gotten themselves involved.
Secondly... a corollary to "Rule 34": If it exists, someone is jacking off to it. This is the Internet. Everyone knows the truth of Rule 34, whether or not they know its name. How could anyone possibly think that media featuring oneself could never end up in possession of someone who would "sexualize" it?
At this particular moment, I would be more concerned with the legality than the morality. Without the written consent of the those men who were filmed, you could be looking forward to cease-and-desist orders, time in court, and possibly being on the (very expensive) losing end of a lawsuit.