The document makes reference to sites that onsell adult movies and says that publishing a picture of the DVD/Video cover on your site still makes you into a secondary producer who has to have documentation regarding the models on the cover. (A minefield for adult stores... and for those of us who review movies or use boxcovers to sell movies).
Quote:
Five commenters commented that the definitions of producer and
secondary producer would encompass on-line distributors of pornography
who digitize the covers of videos, DVDs, and magazines but are not
involved in the actual production of the material. One of these
commenters also claimed that the definition of producer should be
changed to allow on-line distributors to rely upon records provided to
them by the immediately preceding secondary producer, in accordance
with the Department's representation to the court in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The
definition of producer is of necessity broad enough to encompass those
who digitize images--even for distribution purposes--because in so
doing, a new sexually explicit depiction is created. The Department has
determined that it is not possible to change the definition in such a
way as to exclude distributors while not also creating an unacceptable
loophole in the coverage of the regulation.
|
So a thumb TGP AND Google Images would appear to be in the same basket.
Now that I've read the whole thing, so much of it seems like it could be challenged in a court.
I think whoever the unfortunate "low hanging fruit" is that gets taken to court, we should be prepared to put up a fighting fund for them. So much of our livelihoods will depend on how the court cases pan out, we need to help out whoever it is that gets targetted.