What is Digg?147 Comments
- 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.
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+40Flickr page w/ working image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/
- halleyscomet, on 10/11/2007, -5/+44I'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, -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. - goosepillows, on 10/11/2007, -6/+41i read
"blah blah blah blah blah PORN"
and i clicked - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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, -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. - 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, -3/+22My Bad. TVX Home Video
- 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 ***** keep you down, the world needs more creative people and not *****!
- rpong1981, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21@chromavita since when do people buy porn DVDs anymore? HELLO, it's called the internet.
- 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.
- djbelieve, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20im in ur profilez stealin ur portraitz
- solemnhypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15she isn't whoring herself out, she is a very well respected and talented photographer.
- HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Welcome to DeviantArt. Where art meets copyright violation.
- macgyber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Theres still the copyright issue...
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - AgentOgre, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15what a brilliant piece of viral marketing for a movie that wouldn't have even got noticed otherwise.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -2/+11Please read the ***** article before you open your mouth and think you represent everyone on Digg. She did watermark it along with a copyright. They blantently took it off and used the image.
I'm glad digg can bring a story like this to more viewers. that's one of the reasons I read Digg. - 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! - 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 - 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.
- 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? - arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Direct 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) - 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.
- 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? - 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.
- 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. - 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 - telair, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Original Picture
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=eb25e1ef9cdee9b1ba5f8ea209da7d47
DVD Cover
http://imagespar.com/view.php?img=6f5b3a977753b1711ba0dc12fc7ba332 - 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. - Dramborg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Read it? She did have a watermark on the image, but it had been removed for the cover image.
- potofgravy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Which incidentally, sounds like a porn.
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It was watermarked, and the watermark was photoshopped out (at least the parts that weren't covered by a logo)
- Mesach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Dont you mean you read
Underage blah blah blah blah PORN.
and that prompted you to click? - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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...
- brewer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sounds like a job for the Electronic Frontier Foundation!
- 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.
- 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.
- 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... - 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.” -
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 