teenager sues over porn pic

[Digaph]

It's an intresting thought you post, but the real question should be is letting kids watch porn the same as letting them take part of it.
In a way you can say that a 15 year old watching the scene is taking part, thereby it can be concidered child porn.
Back to the wrong use of the picture, she never took part in any porn like activity in order to shoot the picture, so the use of the picture on the cover is no child porn.

Cheers.

 

[Enmos]

you are wrong you are wrongyou are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong you are wrong

here is the question again

if a male of 25 years finds a picture of himself at the age of 15 used on the cover of a homosexual pornography movie, does that mean the makers of the pron and promoters are engaging in child pornography ?

really truly honestly ...
you do not have to answer it,
but please try not to show your self up by trying to invalidate the question then change it into a question that you want to ask me...
thats really low level stuff for someone like myself and i rarely bother to play in that level of conscientiousness

but for you i make one exception one time only

Look, ripple. YOU made up that question, the OP does not state that question.
If you want an answer, here it is: The makers of the porn are not persé engaging in child pornography because they have a minor on the cover.

The only question in the OP is:

If she didn't want it seen, why put it on the net?

And this is an irrelevant question because the photography is copyrighted to her. It wasn't like she didn't want it seen, she wanted very much for people to see her photography. What she didn't want is for people to steal her work and exploit it commercially. There are LAWS against that, its called COPYRIGHT LAW. Get it ?

 

[ripleofdeath]

Look, ripple. YOU made up that question, the OP does not state that question.
If you want an answer, here it is: The makers of the porn are not persé engaging in child pornography because they have a minor on the cover.

The only question in the OP is:

And this is an irrelevant question because the photography is copyrighted to her. It wasn't like she didn't want it seen, she wanted very much for people to see her photography. What she didn't want is for people to steal her work and exploit it commercially. There are LAWS against that, its called COPYRIGHT LAW. Get it ?

is not morality defined within the spirit of the law ?
hence the law based on collective morals hence the law evolves hence new laws and old laws etc...
If law has no relevance to collective morality then what is law based on ?
i believe there is an expression of law called "perversion of a minor".
hence commercial law and civil law.
would you not agree that both have been breached ?

 

[Enmos]

is not morality defined within the spirit of the law ?
hence the law based on collective morals hence the law evolves hence new laws and old laws etc...
If law has no relevance to collective morality then what is law based on ?
i believe there is an expression of law called "perversion of a minor".
hence commercial law and civil law.
would you not agree that both have been breached ?

Those laws, if they exist, may very well have been breached. This does not mean, however, that the makers are engaged in child pornography.

 

[ripleofdeath]

Those laws, if they exist, may very well have been breached. This does not mean, however, that the makers are engaged in child pornography.

using a picture of an under age girl to promote sexual content...
i think this is deliberate attempt to pervert the law as much as being engaged for as long as they sell the CD's AND to be disengaged yet still be party to a historical act of deception and perversion.
Is not the intention to promote the perception of underage sexual content ?

 

[Enmos]

using a picture of an under age girl to promote sexual content...
i think this is deliberate attempt to pervert the law as much as being engaged for as long as they sell the CD's AND to be disengaged yet still be party to a historical act of deception and perversion.
Is not the intention to promote the perception of underage sexual content ?

I don't think that was the intention, i cant see from the picture that she was 14.
Maybe it was a deliberate attempt to pervert the law as you put it, but:

child pornography
noun
the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films

Obviously thats not the case here, so they were not involved in child pornography by putting a non-pornographic picture of a minor on the cover of the movie.

 

[Orleander]

So if a stranger took a picture of my little girl in her swimsuit at the beach and then slapped it on porn, there isn't a thing I could do about it?

 

[ripleofdeath]

I don't think that was the intention, i cant see from the picture that she was 14.
Maybe it was a deliberate attempt to pervert the law as you put it, but:

Obviously thats not the case here, so they were not involved in child pornography by putting a non-pornographic picture of a minor on the cover of the movie.

the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films

the use IS illegal as it was stolen, there by the wrote definition it IS child pornography

Orleander

i am glad finally someone has got my point.
and...
i doubt retorts of blame for lack of sales of the porn movie are going to persuade a good father from tracking them down and adjusting some attitudes.

 

[Enmos]

the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films

the use IS illegal as it was stolen, there by the wrote definition it IS child pornography

Orleander

i am glad finally someone has got my point.
and...
i doubt retorts of blame for lack of sales of the porn movie are going to persuade a good father from tracking them down and adjusting some attitudes.

No, the use of children in pornographic pictures or films is illegal. And the picture wasn't pornographic.
Dont get me wrong the picture WAS illegally obtained. But the picture itself was not pornographic in nature, and therefore not child-pornography.

 

[Enmos]

So if a stranger took a picture of my little girl in her swimsuit at the beach and then slapped it on porn, there isn't a thing I could do about it?

No, they cant do that. But that is a different matter, we are talking about copyright infringement here.
The photograph of your little girl would not suddenly be child pornography solely because its displayed on a porn cover. It is however inappropriately used and in this case most probably illegally used as well. But as i said, its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case.

 

[Yorda]

There are LAWS against that, its called COPYRIGHT LAW. Get it ?

WHO CARES about laws??!

So if a stranger took a picture of my little girl in her swimsuit at the beach and then slapped it on porn, there isn't a thing I could do about it?

depends on who has the most money! if you have money you can do anything you want!!

 

[ripleofdeath]

its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case..

its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case..

its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case..

its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case..

its a different matter and not really comparable to the current case..

re read the first post if you must because the picture of this women was of her being under age.
SOo...
the matter of child porn is involved in the situation.

 

[Enmos]

re read the first post if you must because the picture of this women was of her being under age.
SOo...
the matter of child porn is involved in the situation.

A picture of a child is in itself not child pornography !
It is a different matter and not really comparable to the current case.. BECAUSE the picture in Orleanders example was not stolen from somebody, it was taken by the one using it for the cover. No copyright issues here.. thats whats different.

 

[Enmos]

WHO CARES about laws??!



depends on who has the most money! if you have money you can do anything you want!!

Who cares about laws ? If from now on all laws were banned, you would be crying within the day to have them back.

 

[Learned Hand]

The answer is no.
It depends whether the picture of the 15 year old can be seen as child porn.
Using kids in a porn movie ain't child porn unless you make them interact sexually or show child nudity. In this case if the picture of the 15 year old was child porn by itself the answer would be yes.
Asuming the picture is decend your answer is no, they are not engaging in child pornography.

Actually, under US Code, all persons involved in a pornographic film must be 18 years of age or older, regardless if they are not involved in any sexually explicit scene. It's Title 18 if you want to check it out. And if they are in the film, it would be classified as child pornography and removed from the shelves. Fines/sentences would be less if there was no explicit action with the child. So, yes, the 15 year old who's now 25 would have a right to file criminal charges, or a prosecutor could act on his own given that consent is not part of the crime.