|
kronic, you make excellent points. But from my understanding, the ID the model used was one of her friends that was not issued to her (Kelsie's) with her picture on the ID, hence Kelsie did not present a government issued ID bearing her image or likeness. This is why I think D is culpable. A fake ID issued by the government for Kelsie would lesson if not eliminate the culpability for D. But that's not what has occurred here apparently.
While those guys can be commended for fighting for the rights of all, both brought much criticism and attention that may or may not have came at a later time. The only thing they were successful at was speeding up the time frame that those issues were addressed in a court of law. If not for the extreme stuff, no one has any way of knowing if the backlash would have grown to this proportion. We can assume it would have but we cannot factually state it would have occurred.
WRT to the revised 2257, would current regs still have applied when her content was on his site in December 2007? I ask because secondary producers requirements went into effect this year and that affiliate does not appear to have been under the same requirement in 2007.
|