Remember the Mapelthorpe issues with Jesse Helmes back in the late 80's? (thanks Jesse, our
Maplethorpes shot up like a rocket!)

Kinda sorta the same kinda thing.

Our attorney suggested that we imbed all the appropriate 2257 compliant info in our photos so that the info will "follow" the photos/jpg's, whatever wherever they might go.

Our liability STOPS after those images and the appropriate documentaion leaves our office.

What people do with the info (delete it, remove it alter it) is not our problem because we maintain accurate source information right here in our office.

If the feds want to stick you - they will.

We were told that a ruling in court could be based on the judge's findings on something as miniscule as the improper posting of "the date of production" - since this portion of the ammendment is unclear - the interpretation being either the (date) eg: July 1, 1999 of actual photo shoot or last day of filming or the date of photo re-touching or the (date) month and year, etc., etc., which all boils down to which definition of date the judge decides he will use that day in court... kinda big loophole for da judge, huh?

I'm not an attorney but, I've played one in our sex movies... and my gut reaction would be to ask that members' photos on your site be limited to non-explicit material... why invite potential hassle?

Although this does attack our constitutional freedoms under the First Ammendment!!!!

It may keep us out of trouble (prison sex is kind of a fantasy of mine and I'd rather keep it a fantasy!)