I don't know exactly when those pix posted on Chronig's site were shot, however I know of at least one tat that was not there in the first set, which was there when I shot her within months of her 18th birthday.
What my post was about is that she did not have a 2257 legally acceptable form of ID when she first contacted me about shooting for my site.
Therefore, before I would shoot her, I had her obtain her birth certificate, and other documentation, which the DMV requires in order for them to issue anyone a legal ID.
Only after receiving it, did we shoot. I would not have shot her without it.
She was quite distraught when she saw the photos on Chronig's site were released on the internet. She subsequently quit modeling.
The Ex-GF market is a perilous one to say the least, with lots of people trying to make a quick buck off of possibly stolen/illegal content.
What Chronig should do is check to ensure that the "member" that suposedly uploaded those pix has a release and 2257 docs, or be prepared to face the consequences of failing to do so.
In essence, by offering people that upload something of value (in this case site membership), in exchange for their posting content, he may have entered into a form of business relationship with them that potentially makes him a party to any legal action taken as a result of the photos being posted on his site.
If indeed she is found to have been underage, he is screwed, regardless. That is certainly not a risk I would be willing to entertain. I would be checking for 2257 docs immediately if I were him, and as an extra measure, I would remove the content in question until I was absolutely positive it is legal, both for age and 2257 requirements.
I don't hide behind weak interpretations of the law, nothing is posted on any of my sites without 2257 docs, period.
Chronig might want to tighten up his 2257 statement while he's at it...
ADG