|
RawAlex, I'm not trying to "slice things thin". I'm trying to make sense of these stupid goddam regulations in relation to banners. You can't just "document everything" when it comes to banners that affiliates will be using. I don't want to have to hand out a zip file with model IDs for every banner that we offer. That's why I'm sorting through our existing ones and making new ones.
I realise the DOJ are a pack of bastards but it's still perfectly reasonable to think that an individual image featuring people wearing clothes would exempt. Would the DOJ be THAT insane that they'd go after webmasters who have banners with no nudity on them?
Mr Magoo, thanks for quoting the section for me.
"a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, ..." is the relevant phrase, it seems. They are talking about images in the singular, which would suggest that a single image of people without nudity would be exempt, regardless of what else went on in that set.
Obviously I'll get a proper legal opinion about this.
|