Quote:
|
They failed to show how the increase in burden (compared to existing 2257 rules) would not at all serve the government's interest (child protection), so now it is likely that those rules will be enforced directly.
|
Keep in mind that this is a ruling on the preliminary injunction, not the final word of the judge on the case. While I agree that it's not as positive as some are portraying it, all the judge is really saying is that in some areas the FSC failed to present a compelling case for an injunction.
I would love for someone to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the "passover" agreement between FSC and DOJ is for the duration of the trial, not just for the preliminary injunction hearing. So, and again this is just my belief, please correct if wrong, members of FSC should still be safe until the actual ruling.
That said, the judge certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about requiring small business owners to post their home address on the internet, among other things.
Quote:
|
Contracting for performance. If I pay for exclusive content, or pay for specific content (such as "I need 20 minutes of video of Model Angel playing with a dildo") would I slip back into primary producer on that content because I contracted for it to occur?
|
I, too, am not even in the same phone book as lawyers. However, my read is that if you specify the model, you could be back into primary-producerland. From both this judge's ruling and his citations of Sundance, it seems like the clearest way to be a secondary producer is to have nothing at all to do with the hiring of models. Just contracting for exclusive content without any kind of input into the selection of models would seem to be clearly a secondary producer situation, however.
Again, grains of salt, not a lawyer, etc.
Cheers
-b