the law is becomming more specific/technical! , which means your going to have to "upgrade" your lawyers!
jim :francais:
the law is becomming more specific/technical! , which means your going to have to "upgrade" your lawyers!
jim :francais:
B is not sexually explicit HOWEVER (this is the big however) the law says that if the pic itself was explicit BEFORE you cropped it, ya still gotta have those i.d.s and act as custodian.
as one attorney whose name you'd all know told me, the judges' concern is not regarding what you display on your web page but rather whether any minor could be involved in a sexual act.
Oh for christ's sake. if its displayed on a site and it is not sexually explicit, it is not affected by 2257. If your lawyer tells you otherwise he's got his head up his ass.
Originally Posted by MWCren
No shit..just because they are lawyers, DOESN'T mean they actually know what they're talking about sometimes. Especially in this case.
Here's a better example.
The movie "Intimacy" is about a man and a woman who have a torrid sex-only relationship. The actors got all methody and decided to do it for real. The unrated version of this movie features hardcore penetration shots. Right now, an R-rated version is available on the Sundance Channel. The sex in the movie is "actual sexually explicit conduct" but the explicit parts have been edited out. Can the producers of this movie or The Sundance Channel be prosecuted for not attaching a 2257 compliance statement to the beginning of the film?
Someone should seriously look into this because these new regs could impact the mainstream movie industry. Will movies like "Intimacy" be banned in the U.S? Keep in mind this isn't some sleazy, underground exploitation flick. It's a critically acclaimed art house movie with respectable actors. One of the actors plays a pivotal character in the Harry Potter series. (But he's the not the one that has sex.) The anti-porn zealots would have a hard time making a case that this movie wasn't a legitimate work of art.
The anti-porn zealots want to make this all about porn because they can easily demonize pornographers. But if this became a general free speech issue, they'd be screwed.
Push come shove, they would probably be required to have the 2257 statement on the uncut version.
At this point in the game, it's anybodies guess tho. There are a lot of wrinkles that still need to be ironed out as with anything new.
The real question for everyone involved I would say is:
"Are you willing to take the risk"?
If Yes, then go forward with cropped photos on websites (for example).
If No, then do what the attorney's are advising.
This is not a situation where you do what your neighbor is doing and think that you'll be able to stand on 2 legs in a court by saying to the judge:
"Well, Joe Schmo is doing it"...
I somehow don't think that's going to carry a lot of weight. If and When the goverment moves on this, it will most likely be isolated/selected cases that are saught after at first and only to make an "example of".
Again, this is going to take a lot of time to iron out!
PapaBear
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks