06-05-2002, 08:36 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oregon.
Posts: 2,243
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
2257 only applies to certain types of activity, though, right? From what I have read, it doesn't necessarily apply to simple nudity.
They aren't having sex, they're flashing tits, I don't think 2257 applies.
However, if they start grabbing each other, which they probably do on the video, then it might apply.
I might be wrong about that.
I think the Fly has a good point. They have no right to expect privacy, but can't they expect to get paid for use of their likeness? It's an interesting question.
I think the judge made the right decision. However, if some guy took a picture of me walking down the road, and sold that picture for millions of dollars, you can bet I would probably come looking for a piece.
|
you're kidding right? that would mean topless girls under 18 are fine, as long as it's just "innocent flashing." 2256 explicitly states anything sexual obviously as "sexually explicit conduct" as well as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" - after that it's subjective as to what defines sexually suggestive poses or portrayal of a sexual situation. i'd have to say that topless = nudity and *not* for art purposes, can't see how that would pass off as legal...
__________________
php/mysql guru. hosting, coding, all that jazz.
|
|
|