Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,765   Posts: 1,516,342   Online: 1012
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I just scanned the link on the Amirault case and from what I see the guy was in posession of child pornography which is against the law. I don't think Mr. Amirault would have found himself in that position if he had posessed adult pornographic material.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    The law that started this thread deals with what a photographer is required to do. The definations used by the courts are going to be similar/same to the ones in that case.

    That guy got a lower sentence because the girl was naked! Because she was outdoors!

    It clear the law in no way protects fine art photographers. It certainly doesn't protect Helmut Newton or his works.

  3. #23
    BWGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
    I think there was a thread about this back in 2004 if someone wants to search for it.

    From what I understand it is currently in effect.
    As someone else stated, this is aimed at pornographers who use under age actors. I don't think it will have much effect on on-line porn as most of those sites originate outside the boundries of the US.

    I would be much mor concerned about yesterdays Supreme Court ruling that allows governments to sieze private property for what they can determine are economic growth interests. Goes against over 200 years of government use of iminent domain for only public work uses such as highways, schools,
    military bases etc.

    Now if a developer or corporation can convince a local government that your property would make a good location for a shopping mall or business park it can be condemend and siezed (with just compensation) and you have no say in the matter.

    Absolutely, Jim! Now THIS ruling is just plain scary!
    Jeanette
    .................................................. ................
    Isaiah 25:1

  4. #24
    John Bartley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    13 Critchley Avenue, PO Box 36, Monteith Ont, P0K1P0
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    ...a whole pile of common sense and idea that seem to lost today....

    Well said Ed - Nicely done !! You have my vote - personal responsibility and protect those who can't protect themselves. Leave adults alone as long as they aren't offending anyone else !!
    Couldna' said it better myself.

  5. #25
    djklmnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    230
    Images
    9
    Finally found it!

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...dultwebcontent

    From word that is going around, not only is one required to have proof of age and a federal issued identification copy, but it also has to be indexed in a particular way when the FBI requests for it. Mispellings on any documentation or improperly indexed files can get you in trouble.

    Also, you would have to have a list of where the images are being used: URL, companies, addresses, etc. The site(s) using the content must have the same identification as well. This would raise a privacy issue for the models - Stalkers!

    I don't think the law lends itself only to the adult industry. Just like the great debate about a parent photographing their child in their early years in the shower being considered child pornography by some, can also be debated about an artistic nude photo - it's all subjective. I think they can target anyone they want providing there is some form of nudity involved and that the model is of questionable age.
    Money is not the problem. The problem is, I don't have any.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    540
    Hi there,

    Nice thread and several very good posts. I think the point to the change is to harass the porn industry into going off-shore or paying more taxes. What the hell, they're having fun AND making money.

    WHY does this need for extreme documetation NOT apply to illegal aliens???

    As far as the Supreme Court and personal property, just check the history of the 11th amendment, that's what it was for. It was a fraud then and it still insults the world today.

    Have a weekend.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    16
    Looks like they were quick...
    http://www.iafd.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by argus
    Looks like they want to set up an IMDb for porn movies and actors :-)

    G

  8. #28
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,637
    Quote Originally Posted by djklmnop
    Went into effect today:

    http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64702,00.html

    What a hassle.
    Dam, I'll have to keep my clothes on!

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
    I think there was a thread about this back in 2004 if someone wants to search for it.

    From what I understand it is currently in effect.
    As someone else stated, this is aimed at pornographers who use under age actors. I don't think it will have much effect on on-line porn as most of those sites originate outside the boundries of the US.

    I would be much mor concerned about yesterdays Supreme Court ruling that allows governments to sieze private property for what they can determine are economic growth interests. Goes against over 200 years of government use of iminent domain for only public work uses such as highways, schools,
    military bases etc.

    Now if a developer or corporation can convince a local government that your property would make a good location for a shopping mall or business park it can be condemend and siezed (with just compensation) and you have no say in the matter.
    Thank you Ruth Ginsburg. (Liberal Judge)

  10. #30
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,001
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Nargi
    Thank you Ruth Ginsburg. (Liberal Judge)
    Ruth is not the only one to blame, it takes 5 judges and one was conservative and atleast one was moderate to conservative.

    Its a bad precedent regardless of political leanings.
    Last edited by mrcallow; 06-25-2005 at 10:39 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: change # of consev from 2-1 (my right wing may not be yours)

    *

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin