Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[KevinG]

I guess there could be a good discussion on the definition of what "art" is or nude art and the application or exemption of 2257.

That might be interesting, but what I really want to know, especially hearing from an attorney, is your opinion on whether the Met Art site is exempt or not.

Their attorney says they are exempt, but they also state that they keep records and list a partial address, leaving out the street and number.

There's a big long "credentials statement" from their attorney basically implying that he is a big shot that knows what he is talking about so don't question his opinion on the application of 2257 to the site.

You can see it here:
http://www.met-art.com/disclaimer2.htm

Actually, I have 2 questions:

1. Is Met Art exempt?

2. What advice would you give in this area to a new site, smaller business, not yet established that has very similar content to Met Art.

[Forest]

are you getting nude again?

[RawAlex]

I am not a lawyer, take my comments with a grain of salt.

If you want to publish anything, you need a model release. That model release, amongst other things, if your contract for the models work, payment in kind for rights granted. You pay the model $200 for a shoot, and she grants you the unlimited and exclusive rights and resale rights to the content that you produce.

By the very nature of contract law, the model could not enter into the contract if she was under the age of 18, as it would require her parents or guardian to sign for her. Hence, all your models are of legal age. How do you know this? Because you checked their IDs, right? You took copies of their IDs for your records because regardless of section 2257, it is also illegal to produce CP as per 2252. So you want to cover your ass in case, right? So by definition, you have all the documents to support 2257 right in your hands.

Any site (and I mean any site) that uses the "art" defense is in effect confirming that either (a) they do not have appropriate model releases, or (b) some the models are underage. With model IDs and model releases on hand, you can essentially be compliant without having to worry about "art", unless you have something to hide.

Further, and just as important in the end, is how and where you would promote an "art only" site. If it is art, you obviously wouldn't want links from porn sites, or adult material, but rather you would look to trade links maybe with art galleries, photo blogs, photographer forums. If you intent is to market the site via adult sites, you pretty much need to just wake up and admit your shit is nude models and work with it.

Also, if any of the material on a site is "porn" (sexual material as defined in 2256) then you pretty much need to cover your ass on every other piece of material on the site. Putting a naked 16 year old in the middle of a site packed with nude adult models showing the pink would certainly put you in a shitty position.

I wait for the lawyers to express an opinion, remember, I am not a lawyer!

[MRock]

Good post RawAlex and very well put. Why would anyone NOT want to have the right docs!? Adult or mainstream webisode?

[gonzo]

Big Haps coming to Oprano regarding legal issues.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I am not a lawyer, take my comments with a grain of salt.

dont we always?



j/k

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Forest

dont we always?



j/k

Some people take my comments with the Dead Sea...

[Hammer]

Alex makes a good point, but as far as 2257 goes, no, Metart is not exempt. Although they may not have hardcore sex images, many of their images are clearly explicit as defined by the law. "Lascivious displays of the genitals" clearly covers much of their content where you can see the model's vagina. A good lawyer could even make a case that a chick with panties on but showing cameltoe would be a sexually explicit display of the genitals.