Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild
You idiots. Like Dalton said, these weren't produced as pornography specifically for a pay site. Come on.
I'm not attorney, but doesn't 2257 only cover sexually explicit content? In other words, pictures of black tribes women doing daily taks without tops on, shot in situ, wouldn't be covered by 2257.
|
If they were in National Geographic, of course not. But I believe the intent of how they are used *may* have something to do with it. If you sell it as porn, then it is.
The argument could be, all of these 16 year old topless girls I took photos of were not shot as porn, so they are legal and 2257 exempt. Stick them on a site and use ccbill to bill for it. Wouldn't fly. But if you stuck them in a book and called it art, you'd get away with it.