The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Underage Photographer's Work used for PORN
larafairie.deviantart.com — deviantART photographer "larafairie" has recently discovered her work and image used as the cover for the pornographic film "Body Magic"
refreshments- 1263 diggs
- digg it
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -5/+90Actually, she has a very nice option. She can simply report the porn producer to the authorities for using an underage model on a pornographic DVD. The government takes a dim view of this sort of thing, and with a Republican in the White House, they might even decided to "make and example" of the Texas porn company in question.
- alanflores, on 10/11/2007, -27/+11actually, she's hot.
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29Don't they understand that the photo is not public domain!?!
I think it's about time Digg has another PRICE RITE PHOTO-style mob campaign. - The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+41Flickr page w/ working image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/
- doctorfungi, on 10/11/2007, -38/+17I am going to get dugg down for this...
But I hope everyone remembers the "not in the public domain" argument when the next MPAA or RIAA story comes up.
Sure, no one is selling the music or movies, but that doesn't make it legal. - Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -19/+4Yeah, this sucks for her. But this is the risk you take when you distribute your work (via DeviantArt or however) to millions of people. Someone is going to try and take advantage of your work. Period. That's the real world. Don't cry to Digg or DA about it, cry to your lawyer.
- amfr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35@doctorfungi: Big difference: the people who download music don't go off and resell it. These people, however, are making a profit off her work.
- andresthor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@doctorfungi
Are you saying the public domain thing is used by people to defend their pirating? I've never heard that and I really don't see how that applies to this... so I must be misunderstanding you... that would just be a ridiculous claim.
Anyway, I'm digging this up because I think this girl needs the exposure... I'd sure as hell be pissed off if someone put me on the cover of some 80s pornoflick... not that they would put me there... but you get the point. - djbelieve, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20im in ur profilez stealin ur portraitz
- arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Direct link to her original photo:
http://ic3.deviantart.com/fs11/i/2006/179/d/c/No_Easy_Way_Out_by_larafairie.jpg
(might have to copy/paste the link because of hotlinking) - HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Welcome to DeviantArt. Where art meets copyright violation.
- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
- SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1@doctorfungi - will you QUIT trying to brainwash everyone else? We actually USE our brains. The DIFFERENCE IS, the people who download music/movies/etc. are NOT SELLING IT! When you overcome the brainwashing sessions implanted by the RIAA/MPAA you'll understand. I'd say the analogy that works better is, the MPAA/RIAA (if this were music/video) would try and sue us all for just viewing this pic (you did read the article and view the pic right?).
- telair, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Original Picture
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=eb25e1ef9cdee9b1ba5f8ea209da7d47
DVD Cover
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=6f5b3a977753b1711ba0dc12fc7ba332 - binkitybonk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3jkays posted a good legal point on another copy of this story dugg on the entertainment category, reposted here for your edification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light (verdict upheld by the 8th circuit)
For example, in Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Globe Int'l, Inc., a tabloid newspaper printed the picture of a 96-year-old Arkansas woman next to the headline “SPECIAL DELIVERY: World's oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she's pregnant! I guess walking all those miles kept me young.” 786 F. Supp. 791, 792 (D. Ark. 1992). The woman (not in fact pregnant), Nellie Mitchell, who had run a small newsstand on the town square since 1963, prevailed at trial under a theory of false light invasion of privacy, and was awarded damages of $1.5M. The tabloid appealed, generally disputing the offensiveness and falsity of the photograph, and arguing that Mitchell had not actually been injured, and claiming that Mitchell had failed to prove that any employee of the tabloid knew or had reason to know that its readers would conclude that the story about the pregnant carrier related to the photograph printed alongside. The court of appeals rejected all the tabloid’s arguments, holding that “[i]t may be. . .that Mrs. Mitchell does not show a great deal of obvious injury, but. . . Nellie Mitchell's experience could be likened to that of a person who had been dragged slowly through a pile of untreated sewage. . . [and] few would doubt that substantial damage had been inflicted by the one doing the dragging.”
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -5/+45I'm sending the following to the web sites offering the video for sale:
You need to be made aware that the THX video you're selling entitled "Body Magic" features a 14 year old cover model.
You're using a photo of a minor to sell porn, and your "everyone is 18 or older" disclaimer is a flat out lie. I'm not certain but I suspect that this may be illegal. If not illegal, selling a video with an underage model is not going to be good publicity.- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22My Bad. TVX Home Video
- Scogras, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13"Halleyscomet"
Under age models in porn is ILLEGAL, even if they didn't have a disclaimer no minor can participate in public acts of sex especially for profit! You've got the right idea, I'm not a user on her blog site if someone is send her a link to Digg so she can read our ideas! - Firehed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Yeah, but it sounds like the picture isn't being used in any sort of sexual act, and the picture wasn't at all revealing. This sounds like it's really sleazy (and, for once, a valid use for the DMCA, if it gets called in to play here), but not illegal as far as underage modeling would be concerned.
- special4k4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10However, as wonderskunk on consumerist.com pointed out (http://consumerist.com/consumer/attention-pornographers/lara-is-not-a-porn-star-263775.php#c1545453), the deviantART Terms of Service forbid usage by individuals under 18:
Article 13, 3. Registration
"To register as a member of the Service or purchase products, you must be 18 years or lawfully permitted to enter into and form contracts under applicable law. In no event may minors submit Content to the Service. You agree that the information that you provide to us upon registration, at the time of purchase, and at all other times will be true"
Therefore the production company might be able to claim that they believed she was over 18 at the time the picture was used based upon deviantART's Terms of Service. If they immediately removed the picture after being notified that she was under 18, the company may not be liable (as long as they ceased distribution after notification). I'm guessing she might be able to receive compensation for the copyright infringement, but she may have a hard time with any claims that the production company willfully used an underage model. - Acidictadpole, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@special4k4
Nice research.
However I think that I must point out that people who are allowed to sign up don't seem to have restrictions on how far back the photos they post are dated. Albeit she has admitted in her deviant art blog to be 16 (2 years after 14), there is no way to tell that the poster is not 18+ and just posting a "post-dated" picture.
I agree that the individual company MAY be able to produce that claim in court, and deviantArt would need to remove her account and all images associated with it. But I still dont think it will get them out of the copyright and underage model charges, if they had asked her permission first she probably would have said she was underage and the movie maker would apologize and leave the picture be. But since they didn't ask for her permission and didn't even bother checking the age of the subject in the photo I feel that they are the ones liable, not her nor DA. - fgsfds, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3US law requires that the porn companies be able to provide proof of age for everybody pictured on request. The deviantart ToS is not legal proof. Obviously, the solution is for her to call the FBI to complain.
IANAL, but this is basic stuff.
- Scogras, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19I really feel for this person. Nothing like having your hard work and fledgling career tainted by some ***** trying to make a buck! I think halleyscomet has a good point, there are many organizations out there who make it their goal to over throw the porn industry and I'm sure you could get one of them to go after this company since they seem to be linked with Hustler which is one of the biggest and oldest adult entertainment companies. One thing to keep in mind however is that when you enter into legal proceedings with big companies they will go to great lengths to discredit you and tarnish you character please be prepared for the most scathing encounters you will ever have. Good luck and don't let the assholes keep you down, the world needs more creative people and not assholes!
- Scogras, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10This link could help her, I sent them a link to this articl good luck!
http://www.nationalcoalition.org/contactus/contactus.html- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22@Scogras
Good Call!
I just sent the following:
I'm writing because I've learned about a 14 year old model being used on the cover of a pornographic DVD, which is being sold online.
The video is produced by TVX Home Video (Not to be confused with the TVX that produces DVDs of sporting events) and is entitled "Body Magic."
I learned about the DVD from a link on digg.com that directed me to a post on the unwilling model's web site where she was complaining about the unauthorized use of her image on the pornographic DVD.
The URL to the post in question is here:
http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/13087896/
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22@Scogras
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Well now, it looks like everyone involved is a bit on the surly side.
I got this response from one of the vendors:
from Billing SS hide details 3:56 pm (0 minutes ago)
date May 25, 2007 3:56 PM
subject RE: Your Sex-Superstore Question
First off, if you're going to send an email as such, how about providing some "proof". We are not the producer of this film. This movie is from 1995 and we don't even have it in stock. As you can see from the cover, the "model" is fully clothed, nothing illegal about that, and in addition you can't even see the models face, so how can you even tell who she is?
We will forward your email to the appropriate people.
I sent the following reply:
The model, who took the photo herself, has posted about it in her Blog.
http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/13087896/
Even if it isn't illegal, the DVD is a copyright violation. I understand that you are an innocent party in all this, and that you had no way of knowing that the video infringed anyone's copyrights or that the model was 14 at the time the photo was taken.
Given the legally dubious status of the DVD, simply removing it from your online catalog will probably be the extent of what anyone expects of you.- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29I got a reply!
reply-to billing@sex-superstore.com
cc customerservice@sex-superstore.com
date May 25, 2007 4:23 PM
subject Blog link
Pretty interesting.... Thanks for the blog link. The reference to 18 and over is for the actors, and not necessarily persons depicted on the box cover. And since she didn't star in it then there is no legal issue other than one she might have with TVX. And as I noted earlier, you cannot even make out who or what the model looks like.
Thanks again.
Customer Service
Online Sales
Sex-Superstore
P.O. Box 603550
Cleveland, OH 44103
216.416.4946 voice
866.538.3599 toll free
216.416.4945 fax - The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -34/+3Bury me.
- macgyber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Theres still the copyright issue...
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah it is a copyright issue and probably not an underage porn issue, although it would be an interesting case if it got that far. I wouldn't complain to the online store, it's the fault of whoever produced the dvd.
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29I got a reply!
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35One thing that bugs me about this is the use of an image and model that isn't even IN the movie for the cover art.
Isn't that called a "Bait and switch"? It's GOT to be some kind of false advertising.- ChromaVita, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35It tends to happen in porn all the time. Lots of times you see a dvd cover, and then that makes you buy the dvd, and then watch it, and I realize it isn't what I wanted, and I cry myself to sleep.
- rpong1981, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21@chromavita since when do people buy porn DVDs anymore? HELLO, it's called the internet.
- djAnakin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Who *buy's* porn?
Dugg because the girl is being exploited [her work's copyrighted].
- j37hr0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I think she has a case for copyright infringement, but that is about it. Maybe she can find a good copyright attorney who will take the case pro-bono. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the over 18 is for performers not for cover art.
- onefix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4IANAL, but it sounds like on top of the copyright infringement she may have a defamation of character case too. This will probably make it difficult for her to get a job with a decent company and may even effect her personal life...
- Acidictadpole, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Does anyone have any precedence examples for stuff like this?
By the sounds of her blog she is pretty distressed about it. If she won the court case would she be able to get some compensation out of the producer?
- ohjolene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The problem is, she's in England, and this company is in America. She simply doesn't have any funds to fight this in any court.
- urgan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8So, maybe this is why the DCMA exists for, after all he is the copyright holder.
- Visnik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"The problem is, she's in England, and this company is in America. She simply doesn't have any funds to fight this in any court."
Is someone willing to set up a "help fund" for her donate money, time or advice if in the legal Field? Just a suggestion as I have not yet seen a post for that. I'll donate a few bucks and I am sure others will as well if someone else takes the effort spearhead it. - Firehed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I don't think a DMCA violation notice costs too much - that would at least get the material in question pulled. Actually trying to get money for damages or some sort of compensation is entirely another matter, though.
- urgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I really don't get it why I was dugg down because using this law in a legitimate (and costless way) would at least get the material online removed since he has the copyright over it. Whatever.
- Optimaximal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Probably because *SHE* is the copyright holder. Reading the article, getting all the facts straight and proof reading what you type, whilst pedantic, is usually the best way to stop yourself looking like a fool over the intertubez.
- clark24, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1A help fund? Are you kidding me? Of all the things in the world to be altruistic about... somehow this doesn't seem like it should be a priority.
- korupture, on 10/11/2007, -23/+2We need pictures or this doesn't get dugg.
- macgyber, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6Perv. And pictures have already been provided.
- Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -18/+1jesus halleyscomment, spam much?
- Disease, on 10/11/2007, -19/+9Torrent link plz
- goosepillows, on 10/11/2007, -6/+41i read
"blah blah blah blah blah PORN"
and i clicked- Mesach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Dont you mean you read
Underage blah blah blah blah PORN.
and that prompted you to click?
- Mesach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Dont you mean you read
- AgentOgre, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15what a brilliant piece of viral marketing for a movie that wouldn't have even got noticed otherwise.
- Khemikl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8All she can do is probably send a cease and desist letter. Where are all the copyright feds now? If she had been a movie star or a studio the pornographers' tone would have been much different. Digg ppl.
- Visnik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually I believe she can sue for 1. Copyright infringement up to 100,000 per instance or a percentage of total sales: (this value may have changed since I took an intellectual property class). 2. Deformation of character. 3. Pain and suffering of some sort as this may affect her professional life and to some extent her personal life as friends and family, and potential employers/clients by be inclined to thinks she was willingly involved and therefore think negatively of her.
My 2 cents - Optimaximal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11> 2. Deformation of character.
lol... try defAmation... You make it sound like they pin her down and poor acid over her. - potofgravy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Which incidentally, sounds like a porn.
- Kypt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6>You make it sound like they pin her down and poor acid over her.
lol... try poUr.. You make it sound like they're pinning her down AND some poor acid as well. The "over her" is kind of out of context too :P
Now someone quote something I said wrong hahaha
- Visnik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually I believe she can sue for 1. Copyright infringement up to 100,000 per instance or a percentage of total sales: (this value may have changed since I took an intellectual property class). 2. Deformation of character. 3. Pain and suffering of some sort as this may affect her professional life and to some extent her personal life as friends and family, and potential employers/clients by be inclined to thinks she was willingly involved and therefore think negatively of her.
- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -35/+4Jesus christ. If she wasn't whoring herself out like every other teenager on the internet then they wouldn't have found her picture.
- solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15she isn't whoring herself out, she is a very well respected and talented photographer.
- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -27/+4Dude, i've seen her art and read her post BEFORE I posted that. If you want to get into the whole "oh noes, a picture of me aged 14 got stolen off the internet and put on a porn DVD cover" scenario then minors should be banned from uploading those kind of images. She shouldn't have uploaded a picture of her aged 14 in a dress. Its that simple. She'd get nowhere in court... Unless she went via copyright infringement.
- paulsmerdon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13How is she "whoring herself out" by posting a fully clothed picture of herself on the internet?
Even if she was completely naked, and a few years older, it is still a blatant copyright violation. - magus_melchior, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@donnyburnside: Well, that's one surefire way to get buried/blocked.
Would you say that about every photographer on Flickr/DeviantArt? - donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3You might want to re-read what I posted BEFORE you did...
- TheNepenthe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6She didn't post that picture on myspace or rate-me sites. Deviantart is a site for.. ART. If you look at her full gallery, all her works are actually good pieces of photography. Not your typical teen webcam whore pictures. Get it right, please.
- pastaq, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4You sir are a *****. I feel obligated to apologize on behalf of the rest of the digg community as you seemed to need to spill your ignorant drivel on her journal as well.
- solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4It's not her fault, that her fully clothed and artistic photograph was stolen and used for a sleezy porn ? It's not like she was "asking for it" , Thats like saying a woman shouldn't walk out in public at night, or it will be her fault for getting raped?
What made them want to use her image for the dvd? could it be cause she's popular and they thought she'd boost their sells??
Bottom line....
It is her image and her artwork was used without permission
Even Deviantart copyrights the photos under the artist name. She stated that it could not be used. - donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -20/+5I'm not sure I got it wrong sunshine. Someone posted after me that a respectable photographer would know not to post their art online. By doing so you're literally offering it out for free no matter what license you place on it. Once your work is online you have no idea who is viewing it or using it for other things... She was naive and she got burned. And she wants someone else to pick up the pieces? Not in the real world, man.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -8/+6Hello...my name is Doucheyburnside and I likez to get uBer blocked.
And no dude...I agree with you. People that whore themselves out are bitches. Like ***** Edgar Allan Poe. Publishing books and such! A simple copy and paste job and BLAM I now have a story for my porno. I'll call it...The Raven...
Get some brains dumbass. - donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2Me thinks you need to turn off your computer and walk outside. Things are ripped off no matter where you look. By putting something out there you can blame the people who stole it (and rightly so), but you should also take some blame by letting them have that option. There are alternatives to online distribution.
And less of the insults... You'll never get your point across like that. - solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Almost every photographer uses the internet now a days, even the most famous ones do. it's a new age..and photographers should still have rights, especially when someone is making a profit off of them with out their permission.
- pastaq, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@donnie
Don't try and patronize me by trying to take the high road. Your comments on her journal were uncalled for and really quite outrageous. I find you to be a despicable person. What kind of logic could possibly rationalize someone posting art as whoring out? If you want to call that out do it to the dozens of idiotic retards on myspace, not someone tapping into a potential market to gain notoriety for her career. - donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2@ pastaq
For a start its Donny. And yes, my post on her DeviantART website is very much out of line. I cannot justify why I posted it, but I was full of steam after reading the comments posted here earlier (even reading it now I feel like a *****). After reading your reply all I can say is who is trying to take the high ground now? I fully understand the reasoning behind people showcasing their work online. I do it myself. But photography is different. That artform is used in every aspect of life and by putting it on such an open network you are basically asking for it to be stolen.
Of course they should have rights for their work. But until there is a reasonable way of enforcing such a law you have to expect this kind of thing to happen. And you do not represent the Digg community my friend. - ChrisGranger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It figures that you use copyrighted photos in your own deviations. No wonder you consider her photos "whoring herself out" and don't side with the artist...
And OMG, she posted a photo of herself at age 14 "in a dress"! It must mean she wants to be on a pr0n DVD cover!!!1 Idiot. - hoofedblacky, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1you are what is wrong with America. just for un-burrying your comment I am not just that much more stupid, and deserver to be punished as such. I have an inkling that you will get arrested for some crime involving a minor in the future and will personally laugh at your trial
- amowls, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How dare she show her face on the internet!!! WOMEN SHOULD BE KEPT HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW! ITS THAT DAMNED WHORE'S FAULT THAT THIS HAPPENED! Wearing a dress you say? DISGRACEFUL!
- solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4not only copyright infringement but defamation of character, her reputation of a photographer is put at stake!
- Dramborg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5What kind of company who had been in business for over 25 years, would steal a copyright image of a fourteen year old and sell the right to use it to a pornography production?
We should try and find out if this is just a crappy attempt to shift blame, or their really is another party involved. - captainsqually, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1Buried as QQing
- JonTheGoose, on 10/11/2007, -11/+10How many of these stories will it take for people to realize NOT TO PUT YOUR PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK ON THE INTERNET! If you put your photos online, legal or not, concider them already stolen. Real photographers have known this since the beginning of digital photography. I know I'm going to get dugg down for this but thats the reality. If you truly care about your creative work, you have to be more careful about how you display it.
- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4I agree. You may get dugg down but your point is the best one thats been provided already.
- Dramborg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3But still, there is the issue of a photograph of a 14 year old girl being used to sell pornographic materials.
- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Well yes, that is sick in itself. You cannot disregard that.
- Malchik1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://lorelle.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/what-do-you-do-when-someone-steals-your-content/
Just because it is easy to steal an image from the internet doesn't mean it should be expected and ignored. It requires revolt! ^_^
Oh....and she doesn't just post her pretty pictures up for the world to see -- she sells many prints of her works on DeviantArt. - binkitybonk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3if you had rtfa, you would have noticed that the photographer stated that she put a watermark on the original image; however, the watermark was removed before the photo was published on the dvd cover. lots of photographers have to exhibit their work online in order to get work, and many don't even use a watermark.
- FourOh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Copyrighted -and- with an underage model/photographer -and- being jerks when told to take it down! These people are so screwed!
- Fallout911, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5fap fap fap fap
- Rojo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0Cha-Ching$$ and yes i did read it.
- dweeb79, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Anyone who thinks this is a case of child porn is grossly mistaken.
This is a case of stealing only. The company would not have used the image if it was an actual child and by that picture there is zero way of knowing them knowing that. This art director probably just saw the image and said OOO fair game. The reality is, the the porn industry produces 50 films every 3 days. This is nothing more then copryright infringement, and again that is sketchy if she does not lay came to it. She could have easily put it under one of the many creative commons that exist.- WeAmCat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0She had a copyright watermark on the image that was digitally removed. And copyright notices under the image. It's already been copyrighted.
- adrenalinepcs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0you know that this is only going to help sell the dvd by getting loads of free publicity.
it's sad but true- TheNepenthe, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I thought someone already stated that no one -buys- porn anymore. Haha.
- blog4charity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2mirror of image
http://www.mukamo.com/body-magic.jpg- chantry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2and the actual: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/35480067/ for those who don't know.
- XBackstabberX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2this sucks so bad. i hope everything gets worked out in the end.
- BrandonAbell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Anybody who thinks that this incident can't lead to a prosecution for child pornography hasn't read the law, or even the bloody wikipedia article on the subject. . . Using an underage person in a sexually provocative manner (WTF do you think the box cover of a pornographic film is supposed to be?) PERIOD is enough to prosecute. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a real person anymore and they can prosecute. A lot of people will end up going down (no pun intended) for this.
As an example, what do you think would happen if a strip club used images of an underage girl in ads to induce people to go there? You really think that's not a criminal act?- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Your point is based on a Wikipedia article... Umm, wtf?
- BrandonAbell, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4That's right Donny, I had the word "wikipedia" in my comment, therefore it was based on a wikipedia article. Your logic would prove my point: merely having that girl on the cover of porn makes it porn.
- donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Right... Seeing as my post was aimed at your proof coming from a publicly editable source, and you failing to respond to it i'll take it that my first post still stands. The latter of your reply would seem true, regardless.
- BrandonAbell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Okay, let's try this again Donny:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html
"(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or"
----> "(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
I think it reasonable to assume that having somebody on the cover of a dvd is enough to infer that they are involved in it in some way, don't you? Many celebrities have sued companies using them in their advertisements for just this reason: a reasonable person could conclude that they endorse the product advertised or are involved in it somehow. - Visnik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@ BrandonAbell
Good Post/reply, dugg up.
- ZeroNeo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"recently" was actually something like 3 months ago, she wrote about this in deviant art before, don't know why there is not mention of that in the new post.
- pastaq, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1she did. The title of the article has "still not resolved" and she mentions she found out 3 months ago...
- solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1not only the fact that the DvD...if you read the description...it's about a photographer named laura and her sexual excapades.....they knowingly put her picture on there...knowing her name is Lara and she is a very popular photographer and not to mention beautiful girl, hopeing her fans would think it was her in it...so one is led to believe the person on the cover is in the film...a person who happens to be underage...
and..once again..it was copyright infringement - charlie55, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1you cant even tell who it is. it certainly isnt worth the trouble to fight it. it is a fun story you tell your friends when you get older.
- HanSolo69, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5maybe they're just tryingto tell her that she might have a promising future in the industry. you guys are way too negative.
- brewer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sounds like a job for the Electronic Frontier Foundation!
- merrychristmass, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2boo ***** hooo.
- neom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I'd suggest she just speaks to a lawyer instead of listening to us wannabes on digg.. We do have a tendency to think we are high and mighty because we can google. :)
- chantry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7For those (donny) who are saying she is partly to blame for this, what the HELL is wrong with you? People have rights, whether or not they put themselves out in the open. If I walk into a convenient store, and a robber shoots me in the head, it is not my fault for putting myself in that situation.
No one should ever take an image that has a copyright on it. Lair has built her career on DA, and she has been forced to reduce the quality of every submission she puts on the internet because of losers who think they can just go and steal her work for their personal gain. It is sick.
Please do not debate this topic. This digg story should be used to help her. Imagine you were in this situation. Your reputation, your work, and your dignity would be on the line. I can only imagine how frustrated she must be. - mpeters13, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3How exactly does someone file a complaint about a title that suggest child pornography (In this case, the said Cover of the DVD?) The company is based out of Texas. Whether or not she's in overseas, she was still 14 in the picture. How foolish is the owner of TVX Films?
I dunno, I'd report it. Things like this make me sick.
EDIT: haha, i like someone's idea of telling Oprah http://www2.oprah.com/email/email_landing.jhtml.
She'll make the owner of that studio apologize to you on air.... if she listens..
I say we send in multiple requests on her behalf.- mpeters13, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3so i email oprah. you never know...
- clark24, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Funny how people only care about intellectual property when it's that of some kid on an indie-art website. Obviously this is illegal and immoral, but I wonder how many people crying foul here have torrents running in the background right now with movies, music, software, etc.
- chantry, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Does that damage someone's career? This is more then theft, it is a copyright infringement, and they media it was put into is simply WRONG. You can't even compare the two.
- clark24, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I agree that what the company did is wrong. I was mostly arguing the point about stealing the photo, not so much about they way it was used.
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Good god... I hope she sues them... not only did they use her art without her permission for profit, they used an image of a 14 year old on the cover of a PORNO... -_-
I hope she does sue... because she'd clearly win... it's her image they stole... - minarima, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3If you want to help here's an email template you can send to any of these wesbites featuring the 'body magic' dvd
"I'm writing because I've learned about a 14 year old model being used
on the cover of a pornographic DVD, which is being sold online on your
website.
The video is produced by TVX Home Video and is entitled "Body
Magic." I learned about the DVD from a link on digg.com that directed me to a
post on the unwilling model's gallery website where she was
complaining about the unauthorized use of her image on the
pornographic DVD.
The model, who took the photo herself, has posted about it in her Blog.
http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/13087896/
The illegal DVD is a copyright violation and a defamation of character
for the unlucky model. I understand that you are an innocent party in
all this, and that you had no way of knowing that the video infringed
anyone's copyrights or that the model was 14 at the time the photo was
taken.
Given the legally dubious status of the DVD, simply removing it from
your online catalog will probably be the extent of what anyone expects
of you.
Yours Sincerely,
........................ "
(***WARNING, these website links contain adult material suitable only for those 18 and above***)
Websites selling the illegal dvd:
strippers.inadult.com/details.link/tid/881553/cfid/241811...
www.adultdvdtalk.com/price_search/search_item.dlt/sku=898...
bobbi-eden.excaliburfilms.com/AdultDVD/17654D1_Body_Magic...
www.sex-toys-sex-shop.com/body-magic_15244.html
www.adultdvdmarketplace.com/dvd_view_122311.html
www.xrentdvd.com/TVX/Body_Magic.5-33519.html?hc=AFC-ADT&a...
dvd.adultdvd-toys.com/bodymagic-29169-adultmovie.html - darklord5907, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2http://images.addvd.com/cim/db/images/_B/bodymagic_tvx_ft
Model is unrecognizable. That is all there is to it, hardly any legal action can be taken.- AzraelRose, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Believe it or not that is not the photograph that is the basis of the complaint. If you had actually bothered to read the article, you'd know that.
Equally, the issue is not whether the model is recognisable, or even really whether the work was stolen or not; The model is/was underage and no matter how hot she may be, that ***** just doesn't fly on a porno cover.
Also, someone mentioned that this is equivalent to people stealing mp3s. It isn't you know; most mp3s are ripped with some sort of metadata including the artist and track name and maybe even the publisher, for the specific purpose of identifying the originator. No-one I've ever heard of has tried to rip an mp3 off a popular album then claim it as their own work...
- AzraelRose, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Believe it or not that is not the photograph that is the basis of the complaint. If you had actually bothered to read the article, you'd know that.
- stacigh, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Submitted this to CNN for this poor girl. Hopefully, CNN can make a newscast about this and get her some publicity to help her out.
- pantiesOff, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1I wanna see her little titties
- joshoisasleepg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2You should send them a bill. Since they used the photo without first agreeing on a price, you can charge them whatever you like.
I suggest you get in touch with an experienced professional photographer who has experience dealing with this sort of thing. This happens to photographers online more often than most think... I know several professionals who have found their work used illegally by seemingly respectable companies. In the end, if you keep an eye out, you can make a lot more money off of unauthorized uses of your work than you could off of selling it normally. The trick is just in making them pay...
As far as I understand it, the important thing is to prove that they knew they were stealing it. The easiest way for the company involved to get off is for them to claim they received the image from a source, and had reason to believe they would be able to use it. Other than that, it's pretty open and shut. - Darkside2984, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1The internet (+) freely available images (+) no expectation of privacy (=) no recourse. Sorry, but if you want the internet to continue to be free, things like this are going to happen. Next time put a stamp on the image or tell Deviant Art to lock the images. Neither of which I support, btw.
- Syric, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yet another person who didn't read the damn article.
- kriptonic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1In the eyes of the law simply taking a photo does not grant you copyright... so... unless measures were taken before the photo was stolen your out of luck. If the photos where legally protected lawyer up!
- tripas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not true...Any artistic photos are automatically copyrighted to the author, except in the case of images within the photo that are copyrighted. For instance, to use a picture of the Capitol building for commercial gain, you have to get permission.
- WeAmCat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hey kriptonic, read up on copyrights. If it's an original creation by the photographer it belongs to them unless the sell the rights, or take a photo of something like the Capitol building like Tripas said.
- SampleX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Not correct. I doubt US law is any less protective of copyright issues than Euro law, and Euro law always assumes that the originator of a work has first and foremost copyright. In a dispute evidence would be presented... the photographer in this case could say 'the person in the image is me... I took the picture in this location, wearing this outfit, using this equipment, and posted my image in these places, on this hard disk, and using my own pseudonym'. The porn company can say 'no, we got the photo from our suppliers.' The suppliers then have to provide an audit for where the image came from, and by law must have a model release form and an age verification or at least a photographer's release (who in turn should have model release etc.) for the use of an image in pornographic production - they clearly can't provide this, which they SHOULD be able to provide without blinking, so they would lose their case for upholding copyright. Additionally, the law would equally prevent you laying your hands on someone's personal pictures and using them to advertise crap without their permission - privacy is protected. The image was not posted as a free for all, nor was it posted as a work of public domain art - it is a personal image, and was displayed by the owner AS a personal image as part of a private portfolio of their own work. The porn house should have NO leg to stand on at all, and the law should, as far as I can tell, recognise the rights of the image owner from the outset.
- agreatshout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2She's having trouble reporting the company because she doesn't live in America. All of the lawyers she's cantacted have either not replied or told her she needs a large sum of money in order to have a chance at taking on the company.
Also THERE WAS A WATERMARK ON THE IMAGE. It had her name and a copyright symbol. Before you criticize her complaints you should read what she wrote on her deviantart page.
Another thing, SHE WAS FOURTEEN when she took the picture. That automatically makes it illegal to use the picture for porn. - kronchev, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The issue here isn't the age, at all. The issue is that under copyright law they cannot take an image and use it themselves without her permission.
By creating this image (in digital photography, an image is 'created' as soon as its saved somewhere), she owns the sole copyright to it unless she waives that right. I am fairly certain she hasn't, unless by submitting it to that site she has. They basically can't just take any internet image and use it.
However if she's not in America, I think she's boned. Even IN America she couldn't really defend her work unless she had the money, or a firm agreed to take her case for free.- SampleX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Which is why you take up the issue of 'underage model used to promote porn' - you might not necessarily get damages, but certainly a law enforcement agency could cause some serious pain and disruption to 'SmutRUs' or whoever it is, and cripple their relationship with vendors, by putting pressure on the vendors for selling titles featuring images of underage, non-released models.
- katesara, on 12/24/2007, -2/+0Senpai IT Solutions is a fast growing company with an expanding IT development team. We specialize in software, web, and database development, cryptography, corporate design, and Flash animation. We deliver our solutions to small businesses, corporate customers, financial institutions, and government organizations.
http://www.senpai-it.com/
SEERVERS
http://www.senpai-it.com/dedicated_servers.php
SOLUTIONS
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php
PROJECTS
http://www.senpai-it.com/projects.php
ABOUT US
http://www.senpai-it.com/about.php
CONTACT
http://www.senpai-it.com/contact.php
Dedicated Servers
€69: 2.8GHz, 2GB RAM, 800GB HDD | €99: 2.8GHz, 4GB RAM, 800GB HDD | €229: 3.0GHz, 6GB RAM, 1.5TB HDD
http://www.senpai-it.com/dedicated_servers.php
Security & Cryptography
Attack feasiblisity and security analysis | System security implementation | Remote hands service for your server
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php#crypto
E-Commerce
Development of web shops | Development of financial software | Development of e-paymet systems
E-Commerce
Development of web shops | Development of financial software | Development of e-paymet systems
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php#ecommerce
Software Development
Business analysis and CRM systems | Bug fixing and application testing | Development of network protocols
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php#software
Design & Artwork
Corporate design, print production | Application interfaces design | All kinds of computer graphics
Design & Artwork
Corporate design, print production | Application interfaces design | All kinds of computer graphics
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php#design
Web Development
Development of web sites and portals | Flash animation and Action Scripting | Development of web services
http://www.senpai-it.com/tech.php#web
Finding misplaced or hidden information from websites
http://www.senpai-it.com/articles.php?id=1
Siarhei Shandrokha (CTO, Senpai IT Solutions)
siarhei@senpai-it.com
_________________________________________________
http://www.airsole.net
elevator shoes
Turn any shoes into height increase elevator shoes.
__________________________________________________
Contemporary Chinese Wedding Invitation
Custom Wedding Invitations
Wedding Invitation Design
Free Wedding Invitation
Personalized and Unique Wedding Invitations
http://www.983wedding.com
__________________________________________________
http://www.diet-article.com
__________________________________________________
Honeymoon Travel Tips - http://www.booknolanow.org - SampleX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Having had a quick glance, and having 'some' experience in copyright and publication issues, I can offer a few suggestions.
Firstly, it is my understanding that any images used in pornographic works purposed for the sale or content of pornographic works must be over 18 years of age, and porn companies must employ the services of a Custodian of Records who will be responsible for maintaining the catalogue of images pertaining to given works or editions, alongside their model release form, proof of age verification, and disclaimer notices. The Custodian of Records is required by law, in an investigation, to provide this material to law enforcement agencies whether the content originated within the US or without.
The use of images of a minor, however well clothed, to sell hard-core pornography is not a 'grey' area, it is blatantly illegal.
It is also my understanding that the cover art for the DVD should include copyright references to the work contained within and without. The copyright will state that the copyright is theirs. This is not true. It should, at the very least, state that the cover image is copyright its owner and 'used by permission' which, clearly, it isn't. This throws up further serious issues under copyright law, because if the 'licensee' is not capable of upholding copyright on the image they used on behalf of the owner, then there is nothing to stop other parties stealing the image and using it for their own ends also. This is why copyright holders in all forms of publication dot their 't's and cross their 'i's... one lapse, and suddenly you've got toothpaste to reel back into the tube.
Moreover, there are privacy issues. The model did not give consent and was not (and is not) old enough to give modelling consent even to this day. Last time I checked, all published models had to be 18 or co-signed by a parent or guardian. Additionally, the image was not posted on a royalty free image site, and while you can't stop plagiarism, you can stop contentual theft, and it would be worthwhile checking if deviantART, irrespective of the 'you must be 18 to use this site' rule has copyright law printed in their website which prohibits the lifting and reuse of content found within that site without express written permission.
The charge of wrongful association in advertising would also apply (not sure how this is worded) in using the image of any involuntary female in the promotion of pornography (or male for that matter) as much as it would taking the image of a Muslim or Jew and applying it to pork products, or taking the image of a priest and applying it to an endorsement or advertisement for the Satanic Bible... If they aren't professional models, with a professional model release, and proof of age, giving full consent either to be used as stock imagery (for any purpose) or in specific applications, then it ain't legal.
Potentially there's a false advertising issue associating a teenage girl with a porn movie, and indeed promoting a non-porn model as if they were a participant in a porn movie.
And regardless of juvenile and mean comments about the 'quality' of the model in question, you cannot simply take someones picture and use it to promote a product without their permission, whether they're Joe Bloggs or Brad Pitt, a Mona Lisa or a Picasso... the same terms apply however 'famous' you might be, or how 'good looking' you are. Europe would certainly be very tight on this subject since they are considering laws, if I remember correctly, about the use of camera phones to just snap candid pictures in public places.
What about checking up with Interpol, or the European Court of Human RIghts, and indeed the European Court of Justice? If the products have ever been sold in Europe, or to Europe, there could be a case to answer....
Just my twopennyworth. - jekinh, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1One thing that bugs me about this is the use of an image and model that isn't even IN the movie for the cover art.http://awareantispyware.tripod.com
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 
