Legal Question On Pic Submission By Surfers
 

I've notice that more sites are starting to post pictures that have been submitted by surfers and it sounds interesting but how would you cover all the bases - legally I mean.

Some people submit pics of they're ex-wife so I would have to question if this is legal since it was not approved by the woman in the pic.

I don't even know if this is legal but if it is, how do you protect yourself from being sued?

Regards
NastyJack

Good overpriced sneeky coniving team of lawyers

Sounds like a can of worms to me.

The approval of the woman in the pic is not legally required. Sure, she could sue though. It would be interesting to see the outcome of that case considering that she was married and posed for the pics. This pretty much gives consent BUT.....Not a fire that I would want any part of.

The sites you talk about are risky for the owners.

One would think that they weren't too covered legally, lacking 2257 information, signed releases, sometimes even permission or knowledge.. Probably not the best direction to go in.

So from your reply I take it that it's not legal.
Wonder why those websites ask for people to submit pics in that case. Sounds like there asking for trouble, huh!

Regards
NastyJack

Ah.. A gray area....Again, as in the other thread...The site owner is not the custodian of records. As far as proof of age goes....Being married indicates 18 years of age in most cases in my country. Rock solid case? Not even close. But it could make for a good arguement to watch. :glugglug

Neither is rape.

when we receive a complain...we remove them right away...no arguing.....http://www.privatexxx.org in 5 years maybe 6 complaints...mostly from men who got told by a friend or colleague that they had found the pics on our site :winkwink:

The correct answer would be to require proof of the images legality and proper release before posting it on your site. But most webmasters who post "submitted" images from surfers are too lazy to bother with this. Its not difficult to do if you are trying to be legit, yet some webmasters just use the submission thing as an excuse to steal and post pics.

2257 is not required for just nudity if you talk to some lawyers. It is required for hardcore no matter who you talk to.

Not everyone is in the United States, though.

No, they don't need to be custodian, but I'd highly suggest that they at least have the custodian information handy.

FBI comes knocking, who's the producer? Uh, some guy submitted them, I don't know? Okay, let's go.

Not exactly a position I'd like to be in.

ANY lawyer that tells you 2257 is required for all nudity is full of shit.

I can take "artistic nudes" of 12 year olds and post them all day long with no legal problems.

[disclaimer]I do not in any way condone the above mentioned activity....Legal or not.[/disclaimer]

Agreed...Kinda. The FBI can kiss my ass unless they have a warrant signed by guess who.....John Asshhahahahaha.

Of course, I am not about to panic since I know my records are in order so this is easy for me to say. :)

True, but if you were displaying pics submitted by surfers (Often copyrighted material), you wouldn't have any records to keep in order.. Sooooooooo, I'd be worried if I were in that position.

Is she 18? Duh, I think so?

I would not do this in the first place. Playing with fire.

I would love to be in the courtroom to whitness the case though....I think it would even be fun for the defense attorney to argue...Not that he would have a snowballs chance in hell of winning....But it is not his ass going to jail so WTF? Have a blast with it. :Graucho

Sometimes the bulletin board posters who think they are lawyers say that it is. :)

Nope. They might not get such photographers on 2257, but they will get them on something. They will find something... Child abuse, contributing to the delinquincy of a minor, something.

Well see, we have effectively argued against doing said practices as is the reason for this thread I believe :)

Good. Hang em high!

Actually the artistic aspect has been played to let some sites like this stay online for years. There are books with pictures of underage people nude but its "OK" because they are art books. Would be a different story if they weren't just candid pics.

I in no way agree with taking pictures of underage people. Just pointing something out.

If you do not have a model release from the subjects of the picture you are playing with fire. There is no "implied consent" in a court, you either have paper or you don't. If I take a picture of my wife and publish it without a release, I will lose, hands down.

There are several things to consider here. Forget "the law", it is more important WHAT A JURY will think. In the above mentioned case, I bet most juries would think I am an ASS and rule in favor of my wife.

Second, consider costs. HOW much IS IT WORTH to you to go to court to win? One case could cost you in the tens of thousands of dollars, however, it could cost the person suing you the same.

As far as 2257, DO YOU want to be a test case? If not, I suggest you keep everything in line, so even if your model is barley nude keep the appropriate records; that way you cannot lose.

You can do whatever you want to do, but at least weigh consequenses. May people push the limits of copyright, 2257, etc, and make GOOD money doing so, however, they might end up in jail some day. I, myself, do not want to be Mike Tyson's bitch :(

Exactly. If you receive pictures from "surfers" you have no idea who you are posting and if the person in the picture have given anyone permission to use that picture.

If I had a dollar for every time I got an email saying that Tawnee Fucking Stone was on some site where people can submit pictures - Hotornot.com is a good example. Every time I see my picture on some site used with my permission, I have the right to sue..... And we have in the past. (Usually we just ask to have the picture removed and it's not an issue.)

At the same time, I know of companies that run "wild girls" sites that have been sued because they are posting pictures of girls who haven't give their permission.

And then.... Let a surfer find a topless of picture of someone who "looks" underage. One phone call to a attorney general's office and you might just have a shit load of problems!

I have seen two sites that ask people to submit pics and they also have limited model release that has to be filled out and sent. ICQ me if you want the links to one of the sites.

I'm not sure I agree with that Aaron. Approval of the woman would not be legally required to upload the photo...assuming the woman knew she was being photographed, it was her husband or boyfriend, etc. at the time of the photo being taken.

However, once that photo passes into some sort of commercial status, in most cases her permission would be needed for her image to be used. Especially in a situation like this where, clearly, she probably did not intend for it to wind up on a website. Or, more accurately, a reasonable person would not expect that.

People...at least the ones who are not celebrities...have the right to their image, at least some control of it.

On another note, how do you know the guy uploading the photo has rights to it. I mean, suppose for a moment the photo was shot by a professional photographer, who did not release all rights...most photo agreements require any additional copies of a photo to come from the photographer. In that case, not only is the use of the image of the woman suspect...but the use of the copyrighted photo is clearly illegal.

Brutal

Paint it any color you want. A release is not required by law.

This is not to say that I approve of this...I am referring to law...Not my own opinions on the matter.