Quote:
Originally posted by Mutt
Any webmaster who buys anything from these folks are nuts. They seem to have no clue about the law. You could be buying stuff that they have no legal right to sell, sure sounds like they don't really pay too much attention to detail.
I still can't reach their site so i can't see what they're selling.
It sounds to me like part of their deal is to sell exclusive content by auction? What normal person is going to buy exclusive content without the original model release and ID's ? it wouldn't hurt to have a release from the photographer himself.
|
There seem to be some legitimate producers there and I sincerely wish them the best (though I would hope they wouldn't stick to this exclusively). However there are some image sets that are quesitonable at BEST, and don't come with documentation... Let me show you what this guy posted to another board.
Quote:
Sec. 2257 only involves content that contains actual sexually explicit conduct. The term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
That is (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
Section 2257 specifically omits subparagraph (E) of of paragraph (2) of section 2256
That subparagraph is (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
It can therefore be read that 2257 labeling requirements does not include simple nudity even when that nudity includes lascivious exhibition of the genitals. 2257 also excludes similated sexual conduct.
Of course we recommend that all content sold include the Custodian of Records labeling information but the final interpretation is left to the seller and buyers.
|
I personally have never heard this law taken so liberally, and while this may be his choice or whatever, I don't think it's fair to webmasters who buy content and might not know better. A lot of people are going to get sucked in before they learn.
He may or may not be "legitimate" per se, but I dunno, seems pretty unusual to me, and very easy to abuse. I very highly doubt it's going to replace the tried and true content provider approach too quickly, either. Hard to inspire confidence when you can't even guarentee documents that will keep their customers out of hot water (or at least contribute to it).