Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charly
Prove to me the girl in the pictureis over 18 on the day of the shoot, consented to her image being sold on the Internet nad that you have the right to publish the pictures. That's what 2257 means to you, proof that you are legal, not the content.
|
I don't think you are reading the entire thing correctly. That questioning ONLY applies to sexually explicit material, not to ALL pictures on the net. So, first it must be decided if pictures fall within the defintion of sexually explicit material. Lawyers' interpretations are as good as anyone's. Paying a retainer is just another stupid idea.
There must be a *safe* area where 2257 docs are not needed. If a picture is borderline then, better get all required docs or replace the photos, BUT some pictures may not come even close. Like faces. Or faces screaming orgasms. Or pictures of nude women by themselves, NOT masturbating and not inserting anything nor spreading their pussies.
A necessary condition, but not sufficient is that a person must be ALONE. In addition, the model should not show intention of masturbation and should not show genitals. Even a picture of a woman with her panties on, not showing genitals but with her hands touching her pussy could be considered sexually explicit. The picture above seems to comply with the 3 requirements:
1) single model
2) no sexual conduct
3) no showing of genitals
Since this picture appears to be exempt of the necessary conditions that would regulate it as a 2257 photo, why would anyone require proof of age??
Would a thumbnail of a nude model, by herself, NOT showing genitals but whose facial expression is one of having an orgasm or feeling pleasure would be considered sexually explicit?
Getting the docs may not be a solution that applies to everyone. Some of us are just affiliates with no manpower to set up databases and cross reference data. A middle ground could just be to replace current photos for *safe* ones without having to go nuclear.