underage pics by web-legal.com - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

bret_c · 09-25-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primo DM
im not gonna go back through this and read it up to date but THANK YOU charly for proving my point that content producers should and DO provide blurred copies of the model's info.

it is now official that i will never buy content from weblegal now or in the future, and will not recommend it to others based ont he fact that asshole posted private email convo;s in a public board as well. and on the fact that he is a moron in general.

You either meant that you won't buy from Paul Markham, or you've got your head so far up your ass it's a joke... Maybe you SHOULD go back and read the first posts, this asshole attacked Dave and Web-Legal, and therefore opened up the need for Dave to clarify that he was lying. If you think this makes him a moron, all I have to say is

WebLegal · 09-25-2002, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primo DM

it is now official that i will never buy content from weblegal now or in the future, and will not recommend it to others based ont he fact that asshole posted private email convo;s in a public board as well. and on the fact that he is a moron in general.

Wow, off your medication a little? The only "details" that I posted were in direct response to where I was lied about, period. The person in question claimed I said one thing... I showed differently. Of course, if that's offensive to you, so be it. I can live with that.

So, I'm a moron in general, eh? I've always said that you are judged by your enemies as much as you are by your friends. Thanks!

bret_c · 09-25-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bret_c

Well, you are definitely right on that point, I think I?ll be removing myself from your annoyingly often mailing list. But of course, I haven?t bought anything from you? But why would I? Your photos make me gag. Then again, there?s not many people I would buy from? Matrix, and a few of Weblegals publishers seem to be about all that are good anymore. I'm sure they're are more, but I haven't found them!

<STANDS BACK TO WAIT FOR THE VULTURE?S FEATHERS TO RUFFLE>

I do wish to take back something I said to you Mr. Markham, I did find one newsletter that managed to get stored elsewhere, and your stuff isn't as bad as it used to be, it's still not up to what I would purchase for any of my sites, but it isn't crap. (I don't run amateur sites)

Now, even if you had the nicest stuff on the planet, with your show of trying to get business at any cost here today, I still wouldn't buy any images from you. But I did wish to clarify myself since it seems I was a little overly harsh about the quality of your images.

kevinl · 09-26-2002, 01:50 AM

Dave,

After taking the time to read this entire post since I have thousands of dollars of your content I think I can safely say it is probably the most vicious thing I have ever seen a competitor do to another in this business. Incredible.

It was said that a competitor sicced the FTC on MaxCash and I remember how professionally RB handled it. Good to see we have at least two class acts in the business.

SpaceAce · 09-26-2002, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by primo DM
im not gonna go back through this and read it up to date but THANK YOU charly for proving my point that content producers should and DO provide blurred copies of the model's info.

it is now official that i will never buy content from weblegal now or in the future, and will not recommend it to others based ont he fact that asshole posted private email convo;s in a public board as well. and on the fact that he is a moron in general.

Did someone drop you on your melon or what? The very first post in this thread was a public attack on Web-Legal and the only "email convo" Dave posted was directly related to the accusations made by newgrade. If you try to burn someone in public and it backfires, that's just your tough luck. WebLegal had every right to defend himself, including posting any correspondence that refutes the attacker's claims.

SpaceAce

theking · 09-26-2002, 02:34 AM

It looks like Charly went back under his rock to nurse his foot wound.

Paul Markham · 09-26-2002, 03:19 AM

No not under a rock, just stuck in the studio and busy.

I'm glad Dave now has correct documents and not altered ones. Let this be a lesson learned, do not accept altered documents from people you do not know or can 100% trust, it's your liberty that is at risk.

I have been raided on a CP charge and once the police saw my records they calmed down and stopped grilling me. It was some jealous boyfriend stirrng it. You cannot stop the accusation, but yoou can talk to police when eveery picture they pull out you can show them a document for.

Dave
I assume you will be showing us copy of the new ones, with the personal info blurred out, or at least sending it to Newgrade to show him how wrong he was.

Sorry I got the original statment wrong about you not having time. Here is what you said.

Quote:

When a customer inquires about the legality of a product, I ALWAYS pull the records from the publisher, ALWAYS. I then look over the records myself to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up. Once I have made this determination, I relay this information back to the original inquirer, letting them know that the records checkec out, and that if there was a legal inquiry, I do have copies of the records so that I can get it to them then.

Now, here's the catch... I do NOT hand over model ID's to any Tom, Dick, and/or Harry that says that they want them. Why? It's simple enough... first, it's a violation of the models right to privacy to do that (and I've actually had cases where people tried that so that they could find out model info), and second, it's not legally required to do so.

I agree with you 100% do not hand them over to every Tom Dick & Harry who asks for them. My clients are not these people, are they yours? As for your checking and making sure everything was on the "up-and-up". It seems you did that very well in this case and verified altered documents were reliable. It later seems that most of your clients can see records. Is Newgrade a Tom, Dick or a Harry?

Would you mind very much if I do not trust your judgement when it comes to me keeping myself on the right side of the law.

As for the damage I have done to my reputation, I will always stand up for what I believe to be right. I saw the pictures, thought they were of an under age girl, saw the documents and KNEW they were wrong. I have the real Ukraine IDs on file. Until I hear from Newgrade or see the documents myself I wiill keep my beliefs. And I do not believe everything I read on a thread on the Net.

Brett_c
Just take block my email address to stop getting emails, or reply "Delete BC" and you are gone. As for the time it takes, I doubt it it takes more time than it does to download my updates emails every week.

newgrade · 09-26-2002, 04:14 AM

well after alls said and done i thought lets make a final contribution to this subject.

1. we did get a refund
2. we never saw the real passport and noone ever will
3. ive never seen this much crap about selfchanging signatures and how to move responsibilities
4. this is certainly the last time weve ever bought anything at web-legal

and to the 2 dutch guys who love to pamper us, get a life, you dont even have the nerve to put your irl name here, send me an email with a pic of your new Porsche when you have the nerve

UnseenWorld · 09-26-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Anyone who has looked at the laws concerning this subject will see that, at the very least, the law can be interpreted so webmasters have to have the records. Now, obviously, one who does not have the records, is taking a rather large risk - especially when using Czech, Ukrainian or other Eastern European content.

<small>Why is it that the stupidest posts are always in caps?</small>

However, that is the point: It is not a settled issue in some people's minds, so one can argue that one side is no better than the other until the courts clarify things.

UnseenWorld · 09-26-2002, 09:42 AM

A girl has to be pretty young before you can be sure just by looking at her that she's underage. A few years ago, Barely Legal ran a layout on a girl who looked like she was twelve. You can be sure, if that magazine printed the layout, they had the documentation to prove it. I have shot several models of ambiguous age, and they have the same right to work as any other model. Here is what 18 can look like:

Here is what 19 can look like:

And here is what 20 can look like:

I have good copies of valid Oregon driver's licenses for all three of these girls proving their age, so don't worry.

People don't look like AN AGE, they look like A RANGE OF AGES. Someone might look at me (age 55) and say "He might be 50, he might be 60." You can look at a girl of an eligible age to model and say to yourself, "She's somewhere between 15 and 20" and still be guessing low! I recently interviewed a 32 year old who didn't look a day over 25, so you can't tell by looking.

And yet, I see people coming on the boards here announcing that such and such a site has underage girls, and their evidence consists of what? Their estimate of age from the pictures.

Put braids on a girl, and put her in a plaid skirt with kneesocks and Mary Janes and you can reduce her apparent age by a few years. And there are girls out there who "dress down" like that in everyday life. My 19 year old above will show up at my place in the winter wearing big floppy bell bottoms and a hooded sweat jacket with kitty cat ears on the hood.

The only real way to know a girl's age is through her ID.

Libertine · 09-26-2002, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Voodoo
Jeez man! He doesn't PUBLISH it!!!! Do you understand that????? Does not PUBLISH it. He is a CONTENT BROKER. He does not display anything other than samples. The content producer provides the 18 U.S.C. §2257 Statement info to WL. That's as far as WL has to go by law. It is NOT WLs responsibility to INVESTIGATE these statements as WL is NOT the law, and does not have the authority to deem what is true or false. If the law has a problem with the content on the site, they will FIRST contact the PRODUCER (NOT WL) to discuss it....

I could care less if he has to be able to provide it or not. What I care about is if I have to be able to provide it.
And, since publishing a website to the public is considered publishing, this most certainly looks like I have to be able to.

Quote:

WebLegal
[1] What is a producer? 18 USC 2257 is pretty
clear on the concept, but it seems that some
people are taking the position that because
Magazines (which typically do not shoot their own
content, although sometimes they do) have their
own Custodian of Records, that Webmasters _must_
be covered. There are obvious cases where a
Magazine _must_ be a CoR under the law... when
they either employ in-house photographers and own
the work, or when they "commission" a body of
work (which would place them under the "caused
the model to be hired) or when they send a model
to the photographer for a layout. Legally
speaking, it wouldn't seem to cover when they are
simply buying "stock images" from a photographer.

Quote:

Section (h)(3) states: "the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; "

It is indeed very clear about what is meant by "produce". And one of the things explicitly mentioned is publishing a magazine or similar matter.

However, if you people don't want to believe it, I could care less. I'll just continue following my lawyer's words, and at least be sure my ass is covered.

Paul Markham · 09-26-2002, 10:09 AM

Voodoo, I think you will find that if you have a catalogue that you collate, edit and alter the pictures. Then show it, you are in fact a publisher.

This is definately the UK version on what a publisher is, it is irrelevent if you are charging for the catalogue, you still fall within the realms of a publisher. It does say in the 2257 law it's not exclusive to print.

This was explained to me by a London lawyer a 4-5 years ago. how different is it in the States and are you legally qualified to answer that.

However we get down to whether you want to shove the documents into the police mans hands when he calls or use your free phone call, for a lawyer to argue it out or phone your wife to get all the content providers to supply the 2257 info for you.

You put your trust in Content Providers, I advise you not to. Be it me Unseen, Aaron or Tom Dick & Harry.

Nice one Unseen never miss a chance. But you are right when you publish girls like we do it's safest to have the 2257 to hand.

UnseenWorld · 09-26-2002, 04:56 PM

It seems to me that what is in question is who produced the product. The "product" is an image and can only be produced once (I'd like to see a prosecutor argue that a specific, identifiable image can be produced more than once). Even if someone creates a website using the image, the image has already been produced and any use of it after that is not production but REproduction.

Maybe lawyers don't understand English. I think lawyers don't think judges understand English, either. Anyway, when you ask a lawyer a question, you will get the most extreme CYA answer possible.

However, if you really want to CYA, you're in the wrong field if you're in the adult business.

Now, all the examples given in the law, as I recall have one thing in common: they are produced in tangible 3-dimensional formats: photographs, magazines, videotapes, and suchlike.

The words "but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" would be pretty difficult for a prosecutor to dance around. They seem specific enough to exclude website operators, unless they have a staff photographer or commission work on an exclusive basis.

When selling exclusive material, I always include good copies of the ID/age materials and model release with the product.

PornoDoggy · 09-26-2002, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by newgrade
well after alls said and done i thought lets make a final contribution to this subject.

1. we did get a refund
2. we never saw the real passport and noone ever will
3. ive never seen this much crap about selfchanging signatures and how to move responsibilities
4. this is certainly the last time weve ever bought anything at web-legal

and to the 2 dutch guys who love to pamper us, get a life, you dont even have the nerve to put your irl name here, send me an email with a pic of your new Porsche when you have the nerve

WHY DID YOU BUY THE PICTURES IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS UNDERAGE?

Plugger · 09-26-2002, 06:16 PM

I agree with Redshift. If you buy content and do not get copies of the ID's you are not in compliance with 2257.

I think, however, that there was on Appeal Court ruling that said websites do not need the records. I am sure someone can dig up the case?

It is better to shoot your own content, then you know you are safe.

BVF · 09-26-2002, 06:48 PM

i've said it before and i'll say it again

MIDDLE AGED TO OLD BITCHES RULE!!

let somebody try to bring me up on child porn charges.......they ain't got nothing coming

AWW - Kevin · 09-26-2002, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy

WHY DID YOU BUY THE PICTURES IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS UNDERAGE?

good point !

PornoDoggy · 09-26-2002, 07:45 PM

Somehow I don't think I'm going to get an answer.

DTK · 09-26-2002, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
Somehow I don't think I'm going to get an answer.

Your question is too logical to receive an answer

PornoDoggy · 09-26-2002, 07:58 PM

Should I have askes "How many ... " or "How much ... "?

:D

Paul Markham · 09-26-2002, 09:54 PM

PornoDoggy
I told him not to post them, he had already bought them. I do not know why he bought them. Maybe he thought he could get the documents.

Unseen
And all those debating the 2257 law.
This is about a girl who looked very young and the documents either being refused to be shown to the buyer. Or/and those documents at best being altered at worse being forged. Not about whether the Webmaster should have these documents.

Having the documents or not, will not stop the police knocking on your door and asking for them.

Two ways this scene can play out.

One system has the Webmaster going to his filing cabinet and producing the documents, the police are now happier than they were. They may look further, but they have seen the Webmaster is legit, so far.

The other system has the Webmaster making frantic phone calls to different suppliers and praying/hoping the documents exist and are real. The police are not happy and more convinced the Webmaster has something to hide.

Webmasters, your call. Go with the system you feel more comfortable with.

THE MODELS RIGHT OF PRIVACY
I will not disclose her address to anyone. The magazines we work for do not get it as they have been known to send around a rival photographer. I will not disclose it to a Webmaster I do not know. We do our best to stop people knocking on her door. we do not sell to Czech magazines or websites.

But there it ends, she gave up some of her "privacy" rights when she took her clothes off in front of my cameras for money. Then signed a model release allowing me to sell those pictures and not prosecute who I sell them to.

The idea of a Ukrainian girl coming to the States to sue a Content Provider is slim. The chances of the police checking to see if a girl is of a certain age are far more likely.

GUARD AGAINST THE MOST LIKELY, NOT THE LEAST LIKELY

UnseenWorld · 09-26-2002, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
[B]Unseen
And all those debating the 2257 law.
This is about a girl who looked very young and the documents either being refused to be shown to the buyer. Or/and those documents at best being altered at worse being forged. Not about whether the Webmaster should have these documents.

This topic, like any other, develops interesting sideroads. Whether the webmaster should have these documents became one of those.

Like I pointed out earlier, sometimes when you take on a responsibility that isn't yours, it becomes your responsibility. This is a good reason to let the person the law requires have the records do the records keeping.

Paul Markham · 09-27-2002, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

Like I pointed out earlier, sometimes when you take on a responsibility that isn't yours, it becomes your responsibility. This is a good reason to let the person the law requires have the records do the records keeping.

So you are asking people who do not know you, to trust you? Have you ever mistaken a tampered document for an untampered one?

That's fine you shoot all your own content, the girls I believe are all US citizens and have US documents. And a webmaster if he needs to get hold of you, can within 24 hours and you can get the documents to him within another 24 hours? These are maximum times, unless you're on holiday. What do they do then wait the two weeks for you to come back?

I sell to billion $$$$ companies with big legal departments and people the authorities would love to get inside a jail on a CP charge. I DO NOT ASK MY CLIENTS TRUST ME. I tell them to trust themselves. not the fact that she is on the cover of some mag.

If you run an adult busines take responsibility. You are taking the risk.

UnseenWorld · 09-27-2002, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
So you are asking people who do not know you, to trust you? Have you ever mistaken a tampered document for an untampered one?

What makes you think a webmaster who seldom looks at ID firsthand is a better judge of whether it is tampered than I, who examine them all the time? Especially since I am the one seeing the original and he will likely be looking at a JPEG?

Paul Markham · 09-27-2002, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

What makes you think a webmaster who seldom looks at ID firsthand is a better judge of whether it is tampered than I, who examine them all the time? Especially since I am the one seeing the original and he will likely be looking at a JPEG?

So you are better qualified than a normal webmaster, agreed. Some content providers do not know the difference between an untampered and a tampered one. As has been shown.

So what happens if you are on holiday?

Paul Markham · 09-27-2002, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

What makes you think a webmaster who seldom looks at ID firsthand is a better judge of whether it is tampered than I, who examine them all the time? Especially since I am the one seeing the original and he will likely be looking at a JPEG?

What kind of documents are you using?

US IDs should be comparable by US webmasters with the documents they have in their wallets. Pasport, SS card, Driving License. What are you using, that is so obscure?

If a case ever went to trial the real ones would be all that will suffice.

PornoDoggy · 09-27-2002, 10:03 AM

WHY DID YOU BUY THE PICTURES IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS UNDERAGE?

GFED · 09-27-2002, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
WHY DID YOU BUY THE PICTURES IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS UNDERAGE?

Persistant aren't we?

kevinl · 09-28-2002, 02:58 AM

great question.

titmowse · 09-28-2002, 03:11 AM

unanswered questions suck.

hey newgrade,

WHY DID YOU BUY PICTURES OF A MODEL YOU THOUGHT WAS UNDERAGE?

09-26-2002, 01:50 AM	#154
kevinl Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: US Posts: 261	Dave, After taking the time to read this entire post since I have thousands of dollars of your content I think I can safely say it is probably the most vicious thing I have ever seen a competitor do to another in this business. Incredible. It was said that a competitor sicced the FTC on MaxCash and I remember how professionally RB handled it. Good to see we have at least two class acts in the business. __________________ kevinl

09-26-2002, 02:34 AM	#156
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	It looks like Charly went back under his rock to nurse his foot wound. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

09-26-2002, 09:42 AM	#160
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	A girl has to be pretty young before you can be sure just by looking at her that she's underage. A few years ago, Barely Legal ran a layout on a girl who looked like she was twelve. You can be sure, if that magazine printed the layout, they had the documentation to prove it. I have shot several models of ambiguous age, and they have the same right to work as any other model. Here is what 18 can look like: Here is what 19 can look like: And here is what 20 can look like: I have good copies of valid Oregon driver's licenses for all three of these girls proving their age, so don't worry. People don't look like AN AGE, they look like A RANGE OF AGES. Someone might look at me (age 55) and say "He might be 50, he might be 60." You can look at a girl of an eligible age to model and say to yourself, "She's somewhere between 15 and 20" and still be guessing low! I recently interviewed a 32 year old who didn't look a day over 25, so you can't tell by looking. And yet, I see people coming on the boards here announcing that such and such a site has underage girls, and their evidence consists of what? Their estimate of age from the pictures. Put braids on a girl, and put her in a plaid skirt with kneesocks and Mary Janes and you can reduce her apparent age by a few years. And there are girls out there who "dress down" like that in everyday life. My 19 year old above will show up at my place in the winter wearing big floppy bell bottoms and a hooded sweat jacket with kitty cat ears on the hood. The only real way to know a girl's age is through her ID. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

09-26-2002, 10:09 AM	#162
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Voodoo, I think you will find that if you have a catalogue that you collate, edit and alter the pictures. Then show it, you are in fact a publisher. This is definately the UK version on what a publisher is, it is irrelevent if you are charging for the catalogue, you still fall within the realms of a publisher. It does say in the 2257 law it's not exclusive to print. This was explained to me by a London lawyer a 4-5 years ago. how different is it in the States and are you legally qualified to answer that. However we get down to whether you want to shove the documents into the police mans hands when he calls or use your free phone call, for a lawyer to argue it out or phone your wife to get all the content providers to supply the 2257 info for you. You put your trust in Content Providers, I advise you not to. Be it me Unseen, Aaron or Tom Dick & Harry. Nice one Unseen never miss a chance. But you are right when you publish girls like we do it's safest to have the 2257 to hand. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

09-26-2002, 04:56 PM	#163
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	It seems to me that what is in question is who produced the product. The "product" is an image and can only be produced once (I'd like to see a prosecutor argue that a specific, identifiable image can be produced more than once). Even if someone creates a website using the image, the image has already been produced and any use of it after that is not production but REproduction. Maybe lawyers don't understand English. I think lawyers don't think judges understand English, either. Anyway, when you ask a lawyer a question, you will get the most extreme CYA answer possible. However, if you really want to CYA, you're in the wrong field if you're in the adult business. Now, all the examples given in the law, as I recall have one thing in common: they are produced in tangible 3-dimensional formats: photographs, magazines, videotapes, and suchlike. The words "but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" would be pretty difficult for a prosecutor to dance around. They seem specific enough to exclude website operators, unless they have a staff photographer or commission work on an exclusive basis. When selling exclusive material, I always include good copies of the ID/age materials and model release with the product. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

09-26-2002, 04:14 AM	#158
newgrade Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 56	well after alls said and done i thought lets make a final contribution to this subject. 1. we did get a refund 2. we never saw the real passport and noone ever will 3. ive never seen this much crap about selfchanging signatures and how to move responsibilities 4. this is certainly the last time weve ever bought anything at web-legal and to the 2 dutch guys who love to pamper us, get a life, you dont even have the nerve to put your irl name here, send me an email with a pic of your new Porsche when you have the nerve

09-26-2002, 06:16 PM	#165
Plugger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: North Coast Posts: 592	I agree with Redshift. If you buy content and do not get copies of the ID's you are not in compliance with 2257. I think, however, that there was on Appeal Court ruling that said websites do not need the records. I am sure someone can dig up the case? It is better to shoot your own content, then you know you are safe.

09-26-2002, 06:48 PM	#166
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	i've said it before and i'll say it again MIDDLE AGED TO OLD BITCHES RULE!! let somebody try to bring me up on child porn charges.......they ain't got nothing coming __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!! Last edited by BVF; 09-26-2002 at 06:51 PM..

09-26-2002, 07:45 PM	#168
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	Somehow I don't think I'm going to get an answer.

09-26-2002, 07:58 PM	#170
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	Should I have askes "How many ... " or "How much ... "? :D

09-26-2002, 09:54 PM	#171
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	PornoDoggy I told him not to post them, he had already bought them. I do not know why he bought them. Maybe he thought he could get the documents. Unseen And all those debating the 2257 law. This is about a girl who looked very young and the documents either being refused to be shown to the buyer. Or/and those documents at best being altered at worse being forged. Not about whether the Webmaster should have these documents. Having the documents or not, will not stop the police knocking on your door and asking for them. Two ways this scene can play out. One system has the Webmaster going to his filing cabinet and producing the documents, the police are now happier than they were. They may look further, but they have seen the Webmaster is legit, so far. The other system has the Webmaster making frantic phone calls to different suppliers and praying/hoping the documents exist and are real. The police are not happy and more convinced the Webmaster has something to hide. Webmasters, your call. Go with the system you feel more comfortable with. THE MODELS RIGHT OF PRIVACY I will not disclose her address to anyone. The magazines we work for do not get it as they have been known to send around a rival photographer. I will not disclose it to a Webmaster I do not know. We do our best to stop people knocking on her door. we do not sell to Czech magazines or websites. But there it ends, she gave up some of her "privacy" rights when she took her clothes off in front of my cameras for money. Then signed a model release allowing me to sell those pictures and not prosecute who I sell them to. The idea of a Ukrainian girl coming to the States to sue a Content Provider is slim. The chances of the police checking to see if a girl is of a certain age are far more likely. GUARD AGAINST THE MOST LIKELY, NOT THE LEAST LIKELY __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70 Last edited by charly; 09-26-2002 at 10:09 PM..

09-27-2002, 10:03 AM	#177
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	WHY DID YOU BUY THE PICTURES IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS UNDERAGE?

09-28-2002, 02:58 AM	#179
kevinl Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: US Posts: 261	great question. __________________ kevinl

09-28-2002, 03:11 AM	#180
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	unanswered questions suck. hey newgrade, WHY DID YOU BUY PICTURES OF A MODEL YOU THOUGHT WAS UNDERAGE? __________________ I still love everybody