Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Jeff is a strong attorney and well versed in 2257. He is not careless and would not put up that statement unless his decision was well supported.

Michael

I think this relates well to the 2nd question in my original post:

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?

The reason I asked that is because while I do not believe they are exempt, I believe they have the resources to put up a good fight if they need to. Like you said Michael, "Jeff is a strong attorney". That's one resource. They most likely have some decent financial resources as well.

Look at my question #2 again and think about a new operator in this business that has more limited resources and they are producing and publishing the same type of content.

I would advise them to comply with 2257.

Also, think of the saying, it's not what you know, it's who you know. Jeff might have some good connections in the legal system.

I saw a clip on the news last night of a school principle that got pulled over for drunk driving. He was 3 times over the legal limit for blood alcohol.

The officer drove him home and he wasn't charged.

The school principle is friends with the Chief of Police and he called him from his cell as he was being pulled over.

Based on that, I still do not think it is good advice to tell someone in that town that they can get away with drunk driving. (I forget where it was.)