[Ms Naughty]

OK, the other thread is now too long. I don't want to trawl through 17 pages to find this so I'm asking it in a new thread.

The official opinion of the main 2257 thread is that it doesn't matter if a single photo is softcore - or even if the model is fully clothed - because if the photo set is explicit then that means the individual photo must be backed up by documents.

I want to know how people have come to this conclusion. Can you quote me the section of the new ruling that explicitly states this? Yes, I've read the whole thing, yes, we're asking a lawyer, and yes I've read the whole main thread, but it's late and I can't think of which section this conclusion has been drawn from.

The reason I'm asking is that I've gone through the banners we offer and found a number of banners featuring fully clothed models. Surely common sense should dictate that an individual image showing people who aren't even naked is an exempt image - especially when that individual image is used on it's own (e.g. in a banner), without being remotely connected to the rest of the photos in the set?

And I brought it up before, if the DOJ can make comments about images of DVD boxcover being "new images" then surely a banner constitutes the same thing?

I'm just curious to hear how people came to this "one in, all in" popular consensus on the topic.

In going through our existing banners and this is one of three main issues. The others are whether a censored or cropped photo passes the test (which is a similar question) and trying to define "masturbation" and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals".

And then there's the vital question when you're dealing with photos of naked men: If an erection is a no-no, what angle of turgidity is considered safe?

|skyfall| LOL