Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[RawAlex]

I remember one guy I lent a hotel room to at a show to shoot in had the girl read a little bit of the model release, hold the cash up for the camera, say she had fun, that she had a good time, that she knew everything that was going to happen and she had agreed to all of it, today's front page of the newspaper, etc. It's pretty hard for a girl to get model's remorse and then have to answer for that in court.

[WebBilling.com]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I remember one guy I lent a hotel room to at a show to shoot in had the girl read a little bit of the model release, hold the cash up for the camera, say she had fun, that she had a good time, that she knew everything that was going to happen and she had agreed to all of it, today's front page of the newspaper, etc. It's pretty hard for a girl to get model's remorse and then have to answer for that in court.

Sounds like that pretty much covers it...

[KevinG]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I already knew the answer, but needed to get other unbiased opinions to show to a client that was believing what Met Art said.

[pornlaw]

Without actually reviewing the site, I cannot really state whether they are exempt or not. But I know Jeffrey Douglas and I know he is a well versed and well prepared attorney.

I would not expect him to lend his name to such a public statement unless he was sure (as much as a lawyer could be) that the site was exempt.

That's really sticking your proverbial neck out for a client. I dont think Jeff would do that without the facts backing him up.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Greg B]

This is why I stick to toons. Nobody cards a toon nor needs documents to prove it's age.

No labor forms or problems either although they do take out that occasional ACME product that backfires now and then.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Without actually reviewing the site, I cannot really state whether they are exempt or not. But I know Jeffrey Douglas and I know he is a well versed and well prepared attorney.

I would not expect him to lend his name to such a public statement unless he was sure (as much as a lawyer could be) that the site was exempt.

That's really sticking your proverbial neck out for a client. I dont think Jeff would do that without the facts backing him up.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

There are two possiblities: 1) that Mr Douglas didn't ever truly express an opinion, or 2) he was presented content without context, without explaining how the marketing would be done, etc.

Further, that notice has been on that site for quite a long time, and since then there has been changes in the definitions for 2257 requirements, rulings regarding certain clothed video still being porn, etc.

Times change. One lawyer consultation 7 or 8 years ago doesn't make you safe.

[pornlaw]

since then there has been changes in the definitions for 2257 requirements, rulings regarding certain clothed video still being porn, etc.

As for 2257 purposes, I would highly doubt that the FBI is looking for dry humping websites to inspect.

If they inspected those companies at the rate that Agent Joyner discussed, 2 per week, it would take 26 years to complete just those 1200.

I would imagine that if any further inspections will be made they wont be soft core sites.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As for 2257 purposes, I would highly doubt that the FBI is looking for dry humping websites to inspect.

If they inspected those companies at the rate that Agent Joyner discussed, 2 per week, it would take 26 years to complete just those 1200.

I would imagine that if any further inspections will be made they wont be soft core sites.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Hey? Are you getting paid to post here?
...Regardless, I see your based out of Cali.
Are your law services only Internet based related? Or can you offer legal representation, and/or legal council per individual U.S States or County enforced laws???

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As for 2257 purposes, I would highly doubt that the FBI is looking for dry humping websites to inspect.

If they inspected those companies at the rate that Agent Joyner discussed, 2 per week, it would take 26 years to complete just those 1200.

I would imagine that if any further inspections will be made they wont be soft core sites.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Actually, I think that the sites most likely to get inspected are those that play in the grey. Met-Art may be entirely legal, but they (and many others) specifically muddy the waters, not really mentioning the age of their models, playing up the "nude art" aspects, and otherwise attempting to appeal to people who may be looking for something less than legal. The only place they state the models are over 18 is in a small line on the 2257 page. Nowhere on the tour do they use "eighteen" or "nineteen", but they do use "teen nudes".

IMHO, the site panders to people looking for underage models. They may not have any underaged girls on their site, but their sales pitch is pure pander. As such, I would think they would be a very, very good target for a records inspection.