Quote:
Originally Posted by neonlights
After reading the definition of sexually explicit and few of those links, I can't really see how a
a) No Nudity
b) No Sexual Intercourse
c) Models are well over 18
d) Images are public already.
|
Intent and usage matter...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonlights
For example, are clothing fetish or sites like guys-getting-kicked-in-the-balls-while-a-girl-wears-high-heels (no nudity, no sex, just models), if there is no genitalia displayed example ( http://denimdivas.com/), would these sites be considered similar to regular porn sites and would you be required to keep 2257 records ? |
Quoted part of your original question to emphasize what I mean by intent and usage. Despite no nudity, 2257s on file for all models would still be wise to have for such a site.
A celeb site likely would not need any 2257s. Again, it depends on intent and usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonlights
I am also touching on copyright. I am told there's contents being sold on here that has celeb content that's downloaded from parts of the web. So if it's public already....what happens? What if it's a picture taken at a event and it's impossible to get the copyright holder (obviously no model releases)
|
With a celeb site, copyright / licensing is the bigger issue.
An image, even if no copyright notice, is most typically copyrighted
automatically under the law. Just because something is posted publicly all over the web does
not make it public domain.
However, even if one owns the copyright to an image, one still needs to be careful how the image is used. Copyright alone does
NOT grant one the right to use another person's picture / likeness ...
Is the person a famous / public figure? What is the context of the pictures? - are they being presented as entertainment news / commentary or as something else? None of these questions have anything to do with copyright, and yet they matter.
Ron