dont get me wrong.. must have missed it
where are those 8-10 year olds?
gimme urls or the orginal thread please

there was real CP on met art site.

they took it down really fast.
GFY admins deleted the thread.


who are MetArt? russians?
just shows that their 18 U.S.C. section 2257 is total bullshit. lots of their models are under 18 but they just put up a bullshit statement and no one cares to check it.

did anyone take screenshots of the page and html code?

The next time you're at Barnes and Noble, take a look in the photography section at books by Sally Mann, David Hamilton and also by Jock Sturges. Sturges is more well known for it than Sally Mann or Hamilton, but all three put out books that have nude children in them. Sturges has two well known books called "Radiant Identities" and "The Last Day of Summer". Sally Mann has all sorts of family books. They're nudists after all.

You can even buy Sturges' books on Amazon: look here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...t%20identities

Sally Mann's books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go


Just because a child is nude does NOT mean it's porn. That being said, I don't think a porn site (including MET) has ANY business getting anywhere CLOSE to underage photography!!!!!!

yes that is. its thinly veiled but it is. And it would fail the miller test.

Donny you are right: it isn't a question of the legality of those images IN A VACUUM - but the quesiton of mxing them into a porn site or promoting those books on a porn site.

While I think most people here would be uncomfortable with the court rulings, those books are legal - in context.

Porn sites are not the context that makes that stuff legal.

Alex

So what about a rapist looking at a gag site or some of the other tasteless porn sites we have out there. Does that mean they should be banned because it might feed their problem?

Once once you start going after one, what's next? Should gay sites be banned because they might encourage people to be gay? Or should the BJ sites be closed because many states in the US still have oral sex laws on the books, so by allowing people like lets say in Georgia to view a site like BJPOV.com we are encouraging them to break the law..

So where does it stop?

I'm afraid this topic will be deleted by GFY administration very soon
as all other topics about Met-Art

I also saw this pic on Met-Art server last night
I wonder,
What is MET-ART credit card processor thinking about this matter?
Why do they keep silence?
Is it allowed to sell pics of naked children from porn sites now?
Maybe some teen porn sites owners wanna make some quick bucks also-)
18-209.iicinternet.com/nymphets-world/www/samples/Anjos_Proibidos.jpg

wow, I missed the thread so Im not in any place to say anything.
just hope it gets dealt with (either way) CP is never a good thing in this industry, just hurts everyone :/

Hmmm... was that really Jeffrey Douglas? :eek7

If so, can you post a phone number or email address or something for confirmation.

your post could be seriously taken out of context . I might even suggest asking a mod to re-phrase your post.. i realise the context , but just to be on the safe side..

Lets say the feds for whatever reason searched your computer tomorrow and found the post i just quoted by you on your computer., it looks like your searching for pics of young girls.

Anyways the images and pages have been pulled , but you can take my word and all the others who also saw them . There was nude pics of obviously underage girls, in my opinion they wre artsy not cp , but totally unacceptable to be shown on a porn site in any way shape or form.

WOWWWW Met-Art and CP??? Who would have expected that!!!

Actually Anjos Proibidos means Forbidden Angels (not ages).

(not that matters, it's still forbidden anyway)

Metstaff is a well-run ship ! ? corvette

:)

Ive been seeing the complaints on board since 99
and nothing changes because you fucking drama queen
post whores won't be the "stand up guys" you claim you are
and take your proof to the proper authorities first before
satisfying your need for drama, attention and sig views.
you fuckers are pathetic.

you idiots. met art is not doing anything illegal. they are very clever with this. they admitted to using under age nude girls on their site which is fine, it is LEGAL. authorities can't do anything about it because it is legal with current laws. the fucked up part is they managed to get their site promoted on every tgp out there and push their site as a porn site but calling it an art site. they found a loop hole which makes it look like porn. porn images next to nude under age "art" images.

STOP PROMOTING MET ART!!! STOP SUPPORTING THESE FUCKS!

they openly admitted to having nude under age girls on their site and you are going to send your traffic to them???

law makers are already trying to change the laws to get rid of sites like met art. they are trying to re word 2257 to stop those sites. why would you invest time and money to send traffic to met art when it has a big target painted on it? start looking to a more moral sponser.

That pretty well sums it up. Context is as important as anything else in these situations. A for profit site that requires you be 18 or older and paying for the content in the site is a commercial enterprise. Not an artistic one. Especially not when the rest of the site is full of what is definitely adult material.

Fucking Met Art's gotten away with their shit for years over this context thing. One of these days I hope someone "contexts" their asses and their assets right into nothingness.

Well said both KK and Smokey! :thumbsup

By your standard, then, Delta of Venus by Anais Nin or the ethnographic studies of around 1900 should be outlawed. That's pretty awful :2 cents:

One hundred pedo's

If art is supposed to evoke emotion, or provoke discussion, it would seem that this definitely is art. After all, it is pretty clear from this thread alone that it does evoke some very strong emotions.

Besides that, art is about exploring and dissecting social codes. Photographs which deal with underage people in a possibly sexually charged context do just that - they allow us to see our own sexual ethics, and often create several opposing emotions. Ideally, they also help us in questioning our own way of thinking. Why, for example, do we associate a picture of a nude 12 year old girl with sex? Chances are that the picture itself contains no intrinsic sexuality. Rather, we are the ones who deem the pictures "sexual". However, this means that we are actually the ones who transform mere nudity into pornography. Instead of being passive observers, we are actually active pornographers, turning something that is not sexual into pornography. One could argue that in this case, the observer is the "child pornographer", by turning the images into child pornography. This is, of course, a strong criticism on contemporary sexual morality - our society is so sexualized that it turns everything into sex, but so repressed that it is unable to handle the results of that.

Can you please post some documentation regarding this? I really am unfamilliar with the concept that 'I didn't know' makes charges disappear.
The webmasters on this board understand personal responsibility, why can't your client?

Where did you get the idea that a commercial enterprise can not be an artistic one? My father has an art gallery, but I can assure you that the paintings, photographs and sculptures he sells are sold at a nice profit. Likewise, of all the art books I have, not a single one was given to me free of charge. And even Rembrandt, whose artistic credentials few would dispute, made quite a few of his works on commission.

Aside from that, the thought that adult materials and art do not mix seems rather odd. If you are familiar with the works of Jeff Koons, specifically his "Made in Heaven" series which shows extremely explicit images of the artist having sexual relations with his then-wife Ciccionalina (yes, the porn star), this quickly becomes an untenable position.

Its borderline, I think we can all agree on that

No one is saying that art and adult materials do not overlap. The point here is that art, whether truly or implied, which involves anyone under the age of 18, does not belong on a porn site.

Context.

Perhaps met-art has changed things over the years. I don't know.

If they have, then I'd suggest they do a better job of making it known.

If they haven't, then that's a shame.

You refer to MET as a porn site. However, it is quite clear from the site that they call, and likely consider, themselves an art site. That changes the context entirely.

Really? If that's the case, then why are they processing with an HRIPSP?

If they were an art site, as you say, then there would certainly be no reason from a business standpoint to pay the fees to use a high risk processor. They would be using a non adult low risk processor for that.

If they were an art site, as you say, then there would be no reason for them to be listed on tgps or to have adult oriented affiliates, and certainly no reason for their attorney to be posting on a porn oriented board in regards to their site.

If they were an art site, as you say, then they would not need 2257 documentation for their models.

Do you want me to continue? I can. If you aren't associated with them, I'd stop trying to defend them. You're not making a case for them at all.

I am not saying they are an art site. I am saying they call themselves an art site, and likely consider themselves one as well.

As for your other arguments, those really aren't arguments at all. Why use a high risk processor? Perhaps because other ones wouldn't take them, or are likely to give unnecessary hassle. Why get listed on porn sites? Because that's the most productive way to promote their product. Why 2257 documents? To avoid legal battles.

You seem to have the strange idea that there is a clear line between art and porn, and that the two never mix. In fact, they do, and since most art businesses are commercial businesses as well, it would be foolish to expect those businesses not to act in their own commercial interests.

I am not a fan of MET myself. I consider their whole business a weak artistic facade to sell erotic materials in a politically correct, socially acceptable form. Artistically, it is of very little value, if any at all. If it is to be considered art, it is art for the masses, accessible drab of the kind that only idiots devoid of taste would hang on their walls. The nude equivalent of paintings generally found in pizza places. Aside from that, getting involved with underage nudes to me seems an idiotic business decision.

However, the idea held by you and many others in this thread that artistic underage nudity and adult porn are two entirely separate worlds which should never meet is ridiculous. Just recently, I bought "1000 Nudes - A History of Erotic Photography from 1839-1939", an art book containing high quality artistic nude photography, as well as underage nudity and hardcore porn from the early days of photography - available in the art section of any quality bookstore. At this very moment Taschen, one of the most popular art book publishers in the world, have Larry Flynt on the front page of their website.

Simply put, the line just isn't as clear as you would like it to be.

Those pictures are fucked up.

I never promoted them though.

Double post. Sorry.

I don't think they have any such delusions about what they are. What they refer to themselves as, for legal reasons, is probably what their attorney advises them to do.
Of course they are valid arguments, you simply refuse to listen to them because they don't suit your way of looking at the situation. If their product is indeed art, then it should be marketed as art, through the traditional methods of marketing art. I don't see anyone from this board marketing Picassos, Koons, Courbets, or anything along those lines on tgps.


In that case, please find me an art gallery or dealer who has listings in a tgp or affiliates from the porn world as a major part of their marketing plan. Commercialism in art is not what this thread is about. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that is being discussed here. Context. Not art versus non-art. Not the fact that art dealers are in business to make money.

Well, your considerations and aesthetic taste are not the context here. I'm sure that a certain percentage of pizza parlor owners around the world would not consider your taste to be anywhere but in your mouth. To say that putting pictures of underage girls into an "artistic" site containing adult materials and marketed to adults as containing adult materials by affiliates is neither politically correct or socially acceptable. If it were, then this thread would not exist.

The line is very clear, once again, evidenced by the existence of this thread. Your examples are weak and as I mentioned before, they don't do MA any favors.

The idea held by the US government -- which happens to be the country where this board, that sites employees and their processing/hosting is housed -- is changing rapidly to the most conservative its been in the last 50 years right before our eyes. And the chances of the US government bringing such a site before 12 jurors in a jurisdiction of its choice wouldn't bode well for the site.

IF MA did have these images on their site recently, then they certainly deserve whatever public scorn and worse that they get.

If they did not have them on there, then I would be explaining exactly what was going on very soon to people on this board, since it's such a hot topic at the moment.

I agree with pussyserver! Freedommmmmmmmmmmmm!

Whether or not they actually believe themselves to be an art site, the very fact that they call themselves an art site and can possibly legally defend that claim, makes it abundantly clear that the line between art and porn is not clear.

Why should art be marketed as art, through the traditional methods of marketing art? I know artists who work with B-movie producers, who design seemingly random street furniture, who sell what are in effect teaspoons through kitschy gimmick stores. Hell, the Real Doll started as what was mostly an artistic endeavor. On the other hand, as I just mentioned in my previous post, porn has made it into art books.

In this postmodernist age, the very act of breaking the traditional codes of the art world has become an important characteristic of art.

First, just because something hasn't been done before or isn't common has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is art or not. If Giger were to use his works for a science fiction/horror movie, would his works cease being art? Oh wait... he did, and they didn't.

Second, and more importantly, context depends on the distinction between art and non-art. After all, if the context is art, the situation is one entirely different from if the context is non-art. At least, that's what you are saying yourself.

Considerations and aesthetic taste are the context. After all, the term "art" is a subjective value judgement, rather than an objective observation.

The book I mentioned is a book putting pictures of underage girls into an artistic book containing adult materials and marketed to adults (I doubt the bookstores would sell it to children) as containing adult materials by resellers (bookstores).
Yet, it is entirely politically correct and socially acceptable, as exemplified by it being published by a large art book publisher and being sold in thousands of mainstream bookstores.

But, either way, should art be politically correct and socially acceptable?

The line is not very clear, evidenced by this thread containing several pages of debate and the lasting existence of MET. If the line were clear, they'd be gone by now.

The chances of a site getting prosecuted for linking to a very legal book and posting some images from it seem slim indeed, and I strongly doubt whether any legal case could be made against them for it.

They had the images on their site, but they were from an old page. Nevertheless, any public scorn they get will only get them more members.

I do agree with you that they deserve whatever backlash this may cause, but simply because it was a rather bad business decision.

They already did explain what was going on. Didn't you read the thread?

and the cover for 'houses of the holy' by led zeplin?

Damn - I dont even remember starting this thread - but reading through it I stand by everything I said.

I just may not have been so determined in my attack.

I think I may be half Rottwieler :)

question to corvette/ccbill and Jeffrey J. Douglas/met-art

how many nude underage girl pics have to be on a site
in order that someone can call such a site - child porn site ...
and a billing that processes cc for that site - CP billing ?

how many times the word lolita has to be written on a site promo or in the members area
in order that someone can call this site - lolita site?

usually ccbill bans webmaster acc if they see only 1 word lolita on a trader's site or in a casual trader's domain name
even if they don't see any underage pic on his TGP, CJ or bbs
the one forbidden word lolita is enough

here is some samples form MET members:

http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo3.jpg
http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo1.jpg
http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo2.jpg


are ccbill rules more softer for you if you can turn over about million monthly?



why MET Staff doesn't answer in this topic
(I'm sure they are reading this topic, they have deleted files with underage pics on their servers )

he is crying everywhere about Met-Art magic
tell us something more about underage magic of your site

http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo3.jpg
http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo1.jpg
http://www.nude-finder.com/met-art/logo2.jpg

It's also the name of a classic book........ and *in the correct context* isn't a problem. As Alex (I think) said the other day - the context is key

This thread is vastly entertaining and somewhat educational. Mr. Douglas, I did not know I could plead stupidity if someone gave me fake documents and I had child p*rn on a website. In fact, I thought it was the opposite, that fake documentation is not a viable defense.

Several years ago there was a case on the boards and it's on the fringe of my memory but I'm sure someone here will remember it, about a webmaster who was busted for having sex with an underaged model and when he had proof the IDs she provided were fake, it didn't hold up in court. My memory could be hazy as I'm old, but hopefully someone will jump in here if they remember the case.