Paris Hilton sues over video... (when not if)
 

When it happens, could XPAYS affiliates be partially liable for advertising it? Included in the lawsuit?


Also XPAYS themselves dont have the 2257 records...

"In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, XPays Inc. relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257.

Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 2257 information is available from:

Richard Salomon, Custodian of Records"

well, theres no doubt she's 19 in the video. but theres also no model release which i find interesting

There are going to be so many webmasters advertising that I'm sure they won't go after them. They'll probably just go after XPAYS and send individual webmasters cease and desists.

I agree, webmasters will get a stop now or else. If they keep advertising it, that's when they could get in trouble.

One thing I noticed is that neither trustfundgirls.com nor xpays' banners for the video ever mention Paris Hilton by name. They mention Rick by name, and "hotel heiress" and "trust fund girl," but I think they're trying to avoid a potential misappropriation of publicity or trademark infringement issue if they used her name.

thats what will happen I think

Not sure 2257 documentation would be required. It's amateur video and not actors, so I'm not sure how it'd be applied or if it can. Interesting to know though.

Cheers,
Matt

I love the words RICO.

I heard she was still 17, almost 18 when she made that tape.

she was 19, its actually mentioned in the tape cause she's drinking a bottle of wine

After reading that, how could the affiliate possibly be held responsible?

Im tired of Paris Hilton.:BangBang:

FOlks, that isn't a "pass it to the affiliates" language, that is "pass it to the film maker / distributor. Read 2257 closely, you have to have records if you have the primary creator / distributor of the material. It is not required that each person selling advertising for this thing have the documents.

HOWEVER, if you knowingly promote CP or other, like any other offence in the books... your ass is toast.

Alex

I knew someone smart was reading this thread somewhere.

whew!

nice

bitch she has enough monry

If he filmed the video with her consent, and they're not using her name at all, what can they sue over? 2257? lol

I guess the Hilton lawyers could bankrupt even most millionaires with legal bills even if they don't have a case.

I suppose the lawsuit = more publicity for Paris once the scandal gets boring.