Celeb contenty and 2257

RawAlex · 2005-11-23, 08:03 PM

Read the 2257 rules carefully - it only applied to actual sex. It is very rare to find celebs in actual visible penetration hardcore. Most of the stuff is 2257 exempt. However, there are other issues, so you have to understand the sources for celeb content. It comes in two categories:

- What is in a movie
- what is shot as "news".

The Mr. Skin theory is that they "review" movies and show you the clips. They are "reporting", and reporting is pretty much a safe way to go about things. They choos to report the sexy parts, the nude parts, the topless parts, and the nipple slips, but before the law they are not much different from Roger Ebert (except possibly thinner). There is a form of "fair use" for the media. In order to stick with this, the content has to be used in context and presented in context. You cannot pull a topless Madonna picture and claim she is in a wild sex orgy, example.

The "news" shots are shot mostly be professional photographers either independant or hired by magazines, newspapers, and such. These images are copyright to either the original shooter or whoever bought the rights. You cannot use those images without permission (license) from whoever holds the rights.

So, technically, celeb content is legal to use and 2257 exempt if you can get licenced content - which I doubt you will find for reasonable money. So good luck.

Alex

2005-11-23, 08:03 PM	#2
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Read the 2257 rules carefully - it only applied to actual sex. It is very rare to find celebs in actual visible penetration hardcore. Most of the stuff is 2257 exempt. However, there are other issues, so you have to understand the sources for celeb content. It comes in two categories: - What is in a movie - what is shot as "news". The Mr. Skin theory is that they "review" movies and show you the clips. They are "reporting", and reporting is pretty much a safe way to go about things. They choos to report the sexy parts, the nude parts, the topless parts, and the nipple slips, but before the law they are not much different from Roger Ebert (except possibly thinner). There is a form of "fair use" for the media. In order to stick with this, the content has to be used in context and presented in context. You cannot pull a topless Madonna picture and claim she is in a wild sex orgy, example. The "news" shots are shot mostly be professional photographers either independant or hired by magazines, newspapers, and such. These images are copyright to either the original shooter or whoever bought the rights. You cannot use those images without permission (license) from whoever holds the rights. So, technically, celeb content is legal to use and 2257 exempt if you can get licenced content - which I doubt you will find for reasonable money. So good luck. Alex