Met-Art Safe or Stay Away ?
 

Hi guys,

Do you think these guys are safe to promote or should I just stay away ?

www.met-art.com
www.galitsin-cash.com

I'm not saying it's CP, and they do use CCBill, but I get a bad feeling when I look at the FHGs.

Thanks.

if you have to ask what do you think is the answer?

why dont you email them and ask

and then come back here and tell us what they say
I wanna sign up for that

Ill tell you what..... if you wanna take care of that I will sign up under your code

Do you think they are concerned about US Law...

Organization:
Grigori Galitsyn
Grigori Galitsyn
Lenina prospect, 29-75
Volgograd, RU 40006
RU
Phone: +7-903-3742400
Email: Whois Privacy and Spam Prevention by Whois Source

Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

Domain Name: GALITSIN-CASH.COM

Created on..............: Wed, Nov 17, 2004
Expires on..............: Sat, Nov 17, 2007
Record last updated on..: Thu, Jun 30, 2005

Administrative Contact:
Grigori Galitsyn
Grigori Galitsyn
Lenina prospect, 29-75
Volgograd, RU 40006
RU
Phone: +7-903-3742400
Email: Whois Privacy and Spam Prevention by Whois Source

Their stuff has always concerned me. Not sating that there is anything wrong with it, but it is content that makes me wonder about their ages.

It is very nice looking well done stuff.

They claim to be 2257 exempt (no sexual material) but I was able to find girls kissing and suggestions of mutual masturbation on the tour itself.

I have never been comfortable with this site.

Alex

beautiful photos that probably fall under the definition of 'art'

like much kp does these days- creepy

This stuff is pretty much like the Peter Hegre (Danish Photographer) stuff. Legal and above board as far as I can see.

edit for typo..

I've never promoted them, but when I get galleries submitted to me...I pause a moment wondering if I should accept it or not...the actual photography is amazing and extreme high-quality...but at times the models of galitsin look a shade young.

Me niether... post a couple URL's if you have any so we can take a look.
would you say they looked younger than these? http://www.teensforcash.com/

Cheers!

Teensforcash the girls look 18 at least...there's another sponsor though that I've just been turning down the galleries because the teen just looks too friggin' young. She's 18, but they make her look like a 12 year old and it kinda creeps me out. I won't post the name of the site or sponsor, as I don't want people bitching at me :D I still find it disturbing when sponsors try to create the illusion of underaged models.

You cruise around the Metart tour, you will see girls that are questionable. Because they are not providing 2257 info (they claim not to need it) they are in my mind in doubt.

Mmmm seems I had Galitsin listed in one of my link sites - but it was being redircted to The Hegre Archives... strange this does too - take a look - http://www.galitsin-archives.com/

This is the program for Hegre - http://www.newnudecash.com/sites.html - worth a look

Must be some bad blood between those 2 down the line - still, I never flagged Galitsin as dodgy.

Tommy,

You have a PM :D

There are definate nude photos on Met-Art of children as young as 4-5...many in the early stages of puberty, and dozens of sets of YOUNG teenagers...14 to 16 yrs olds.
Very Artistically done, and beautiful photographs...but still definately nude children.

I wouldn't touch met art no matter the fantastic images.

Falls near the same category as nudist sites with naked children frolicking around...perhaps legal but rather touchy to promote as we are in the adult porn business.

All look 18 to me.

Oh shit! Are you sure?? I signed up with them not long ago - only made one site for them so far, in fact....Their 2257 statement claims that all models are over 18 and their lawyer is Jeffrey Douglas (the guy working with FSC on the court challenge)....But this is the second time I've heard something about this within 24 hours. |dizzy|

Okay, let's see how fast they respond to emails.....

Apparently, they answer email very quickly :)

According to MET and their attorney, every single model on their site was 18 or older when photographed. And they went into great detail of the steps they take to ensure it. Anyway, I feel a lot better now and can comfortably promote them. If anybody needs a copy of the email for their own peace of mind, just PM me.

Well
Go in the site and look at the work of one of their most prolific photographers Jacques Bourboulon There are several sets there from his early days including nudes of Eva Ionesco when she was 14.
A short bio of him is below, but even more interesting is this interview with another of met Arts main photographers
http://www.michelle7.com/interviews/...rd_murrian.htm

That isn't even counting the fact they feature David Hamiltons work who is infamous for his huge portfolio of erotic photos of teens and preteens

Again..perhaps legal, most definately in much of Europe where it is common to see naked children under 18 in mainstream films in sexual situations, but in my opinion a dangerous risk for a US adult webmaster in todays climate.

As far as their disclaimer that all their models are over 18 at the time of the shoot...I really do not trust that claim when immediately after the disclaimer they continue that they are exempt from keeping any records proving the girls are of age.

__________________________________________________________________
Jacques Bourboulon (born December 8, 1946) is a French photographer, specialized in nude photography of very young girls. He started as a fashion photographer, but switched to nude photography in the mid seventies. The summit of his career was in the late seventies and early eighties. Image File history File links Cover scan from the book Photographier le nu par Jacques Bourboulon, personal scan, claiming fair use (does not detract from original work, scanned from legal copy, image is of sufficiently low resolution). ... Image File history File links Cover scan from the book Photographier le nu par Jacques Bourboulon, personal scan, claiming fair use (does not detract from original work, scanned from legal copy, image is of sufficiently low resolution). ... 1996 is a leap year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. ... December 8 is the 342nd day (343rd in leap years) of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... 1946 was a common year starting on Tuesday. ...

Contrary to David Hamilton, who photographed the same subject, his pictures focus on bright light and sharp contrasts. His most typical pictures were shot on the Spanish island of Ibiza, playing on the juxtaposition of blue sky, white walls and sun-tanned skin. His pictures also include fetishist details, such as white socks or underwear, and oiled up bodies. The models often take very similar poses, leading to repetitivity. David Hamilton (born April 15, 1933) is a photographer from Britain. ... Eivissa, Cala de sa Galera, with the Puig Nunó in the background Eivissa or Ibiza is one of the Balearic Islands located in the Mediterranean Sea, and belonging to Spain. ... A model of Scentual Sun demonstrates the differences between clear skin and a sun tan. ... Sexual fetishism, first described as such by Sigmund Freud though the concept and certainly the activity is quite ancient, is a form of paraphilia where the object of affection is a specific inanimate object or part of a persons body. ...

The most famous model of Jacques Bourboulon has been French actress Eva Ionesco. Bourboulon is also known for always working with a Pentax. Eva Ionesco (born on July 18, 1965) is a French actress, born in Paris, France. ... PENTAX Corp. ...

Jacques Bourboulon is very representative of a time when the image of nude young girls was much more acceptable than today. Bourboulon was in no way an underground photograph, and his pictures were widely distributed in books or displayed in mainstream magazines such as Photo. Due to growing concerns over child pornography and abuse, this could no longer be the case at the beginning of the 21st century. Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought. ... A photograph (often just called a photo) is an image (or a representation of that on e. ... The term child pornography (sometimes referred to as kiddie porn) generally refers to pornography featuring a child; however, the precise definition of pornography and child varies by region and country. ... Child abuse is the physical or psychological mistreatment of a child by his or her parents (including adoptive parents), guardians, or other adults. ...

The result is that Jacques Bourboulon is no longer mainstream but that his pictures and books are actively traded among amateurs on the web.

__________________________________________________________________

Thats an interesting way of looking at it |crazy|
I can't comment on what these sites have or have not got inside as I havent looked, but if they alledgedly associate themselves with photographers who exploit the trust of a minor, surely that is guilty by association.
I live in Europe and I can put my hand on my heart and say, any picture of a naked child whether she is 5 or 15 would turn my stomach.
Yes, there may not be much difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year old physically, but mentally and emotionally, they are a world apart. I dont care if it is legal in some countries |angry|

Some major sponsors make a point of using models that appear under age. I remember seeing a gallery of one well known model from a well known sponsor in her first photo shoots that I thought didn't look a day over 16. It was taken at home with her in a bunk bed too Who sleeps in a bunkbed after 18? :D It's all part of the "teen" thing. Met Art has been around for awhile and is promoted by alot of respected webmasters.

Well guys,

I did some research and this is all I have to say:

Don't advertise that mother fucker !

Emperor

Okay, we won't. :)

Well how about expounding on that?
What did your research come up with?

Yes, these girls, and little april etc may technically be 18, but we all know damn well that they are chosen because they appear much younger. Ask yourself who exactly is this intended to cater to, and do you want to be a part of it?

Emperor: What is Your plan here? First You ask the question if this sponsor is okay and after the tread start going You decide to announce Your "research" - its a motherfucker - don't market it? And You do not tell why! Thats some kind of research.
Personally I admit I prefer hot "MILF" but if the site really is okay and the models have the age above 18 why do You want to bad mouth the sponsor.
Also regarding the 2257, I know its a pain in the ass for many US webmasters - but even US is a great country its only a little part of the world and its the only place where 2257 is required. It will never reach Europe as an ex so why should the site need to fullfill the 2257 requirements?
Hey! BTW: An idea in future could be european webmasters and US webmaster working together. When I say european I mean the good old western european countries :)

I've promoted this site through various channels for a while. I use their FHG's at my blog.

the result? signups.

I've talked to guys in email about legallity and seen them quoted several times about legality and while i can offer no garuntees i do know that they say they do not promote condone underage photography. they do not attempt to make sales for people looking for that kind of content. they do not welcome that kind of marketing. they shoot only consenting adult models.

so for whatever that's worth that's cool.

look at this gallery for example:
http://hosted.met-art.com/generated_.../922213/24180/

that's some of the most incredible content in the industry imho and i love listing it. its amazing softcore.

2257 exempt? Unlikely. but i'm not hosting it on my server anyways so who cares, as long as i've been assured they're of legal age.

They're not guiltier about marketing to the folks looking for just over the border 18 folks than many, many programs who are owned by folks right in our kneck of the woods.

If you're uncomfortable marketing the 'just recently 18' crowd might want to take a good look at some of the programs you're promoting. I can think of several sites offhand that have these types of sites in their programs.

I'll put my 2 cents in here.

I signed up to MET last month.

After going through the first 3 years of their archives I had seen enough preteens to make me cancel my membership.

When I asked them about it, they denied it all and said they couldn't find any and claimed they only go back two weeks in the archives (bull). Why does it say 1999 in the archives then?

I even told them specifically one set that I remember that had a 10-12 year old girl in it. It was very obvious,,, no hips, no tits, no hair, nothing. She is a child. That whole guest photographer set is all children from that particular series (attitude series). He then responded that it doesn't exists. I even offered to give him a url to it if he gave me a temp pass to get back in. Again, denial.

In total I'd say that 10 percent of the early years is all children.

While perfectly legal and non-explicit, it does NOT belong in a site being promoted by pornographers.

I suggest not touching them. Preteens and porn do NOT mix and opens yourself up to all kinds of trouble.

not only that, even if the model IS 18+, protraying her as under 18 in explicit content IS ILLEGAL and considered child pornography.

It's law in both the US and Canada. While it's burried in US law, it's clearly stated in the canadian Age of Consent laws and Child Protection acts. In Canada anyone distributing, producing and selling the product can be charged under these laws and face STEEP penalties.

I know I saw the same thing looking through their site, thus my post about there definately being children on their site.
Admitted the images I saw were beautiful photographs, with out being overtly sexual...but still children under the age of 18 naked, and several with spread legs.
Again...quite possibly completely legal even in todays political climate, but not something I will continue to promote.

Just because a books cover is PG, does not make the content of the book safe.

Quite honestly even if they cleaned the whole site out and took all the definate pre-teens out I wouldn't feel safe promoting them without signed and dated proof every girl on their site was off legal age at the time of the shoot. Which being overseas they feel they do not need.

since i've promoted this site many diferent times at many different channels i'm lauching my own investigation into the matter.

wish me luck.

bleh.

i'm done with this topic. time to move on.

Not that it really matters, but Hegre isnt danish, he's norwegian ;)

I happen to reject galleries that uses sponsors that try to create this virtual KP...even if the models are 18 it just completely creeps me out to see 18 year olds dressed / acting like 12 year olds. They're definitely trying to cater to a segment of the population that I don't want visiting my sites.

I'd been busy the last few weeks and not much out here... so I come late to the party:

As an affiliate with Met-Art I have access to their member section, and as an European I'm problably not as narrow-minded as the US laws (reflecting the thinking of many US citizens) - hence my comments:

1. in recent years there's been no content published by Met-Art which really looks "under-age". You might find some sets (5,6,?) in the pre-2000 section which are a little dubious, but these are all pictures well below the quality of today and hardly worth another look (plus: they'd been published over and over on TGPs at the time = they are well known).

2. Met-Art's address of business in NEW YORK/USA - would they really risk this exposure to US litigation if they were doing anything non-conform with US laws?

3. you can find heaps of sets which are of high aesthetic value featuring models well in their twenties - those are the ones I pick to promote Met-Art! The decision to sign-up with the site is in any case with the surfer, and if I don't push anything even remotely suggesting 'young' then I don't believe that I'm fostering this mind-set...

Getting listings with Met-Art content is another story, though: they are a little over-exposed, plus many sites have them blacklisted (same way of thinking I find in several posts above)...

Food for thought: personally I have actually more problems with a lot of these so-called "reality sites", where girls are portrayed as willingly to have sex with any old fart showing off a flash car or some cash... I'm thinking of sites like "Girls For Cash", "Teen Hitchhiker", and the like (where all girls might look legal).

What's about these twisted minds who take this for real, and how will they react if a young girl says "NO" to their advances?
Are we (indirectly) encouraging RAPE?

I stand corrected sir - they all look the same to me ;-)

Cheers! |viking|

If a chick wants to fuck for cash (we're talking fantasy sites here anyway) That is not rape. I don't see your point George.

The point is: these guys get the FALSE impression that any young chick will say 'yes' to a bundle of cash (or are quickly impressed by other signs of wealth, or promises of fame) and have sex with any stranger. Have you never heard of the twisted idea "no" from a girl really means "yes"? And that's then rape.

Anyhow: I thought I had made it fairly clear in my initial post - at least for the ones with more than one braincell ... |devil|

The sexualization of very young looking girls is dangerous