Lawsuit of the Day: Clearing Her Porn Name
This is from earlier in the week, but it’s worthwhile. From Consumerist:
Remember Lara, whose self-portrait was stolen from deviantART and used as the cover of a porn DVD? Yeah, she’s suing the shady pornographers. Good for Lara.You can read the entire complaint on The Smoking Gun, but here’s the best part:
“Apparently, merely ridiculing Lara Jade was no longer satisfying so Burge [that’s the pornographer] and TVX felt the need to accuse Lara Jade of “scheming,” by which Burge presumably meant to suggest that Lara Jade, a teenager in England, had intentionally allowed her creative work to be placed on the internet in the hope that it would be stolen by a pornographic video manufacturer in Texas and used as the cover of a re-packaged 1970’s era pornographic movie so she could then locate the Texas-based pornographer in the hope of extracting compensation from it. The absurdity of this notion is readily apparent.”
Lara’s lawyer is awesome.
We concur. With advocacy like this, the presumption that someone named “Lara Jade” is a porn star can be rebutted.
Girl Whose Photo Was Stolen And Used For Porn DVD Sues [Consumerist]
Teen Sues Over XXX-Video “Debut” [The Smoking Gun] [quasi-NSFW]
(16) 
Comments
Lara Jade to 18!
Not first.
San!!!
Um, anybody else find it extremely distasteful to put a 14-year old on the cover of a porn video? Shows the inclinations of the porn crowd, but I can imagine that what they found within was slightly different than those expectations. Child porn arguments, anyone?
Of course, most of you may find or at least claim you find porn "distasteful," but my point is that this is going a bit far, even for that scurrilous arena, dontcha think?
Lat, Suggest you add NSFW next to the smoking gun link.
The TSG link is to a Complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida. How is that NSFW?
It would be fun to get cases where part of the investigation is to order porn.
Lolita, you're sweeter but you'll never make a cheater out of me.
18 U.S.C. 2256(8) which defines child pornography as, in pertinent part: "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, , video, picture, drawing or computer or computer-generated image or picture, which is produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where: (Par.) (4) it is advertised, distributed, promoted or presented in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
So, by putting a photo of a 14 year old vamping for the camera on the cover of a pornographic DVD, are not the distributors advertising, distributing and promoting the DVD such a manner as “to convey the impression” that it consists of depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct?
1216, the complaint includes both the SWF front and rather NSFW back of the cover
12:24,
Based on the statute you posted, this does not qualify as child pornography becasue the image is not of "sexually explicit conduct", which is required in addition to it being advertised, distributed, promoted or presented.
If someone is on the cover of a movie, isn't there the clear implication that the someone is in the movie itself? While the porn industry may not necessarily honor that standard in fact, this should be based on the consumer perspective--and the consumer is going to buy the dvd based on what he sees on the front (and on the back, which, being actual shots from the dvd, or so it would appear, lend even more credence to believing in the participation of the person on the other side of the cover).
There is accordingly a strong argument if you have a 14-year old on the cover, and sexual acts within, that the explicit sexual acts within are being held out to be visual depictions of sex acts by either the minor on the cover or other minors.
Completely irrelevent question, but what do you think is worse: Picture on front of porno box has
1) 14 yr old who looks 20 OR
2) 20 yr old who looks 14
11:43,
as i read it, there has to be the image itself must be of sexual conduct or implied sexual conduct. at best, the cover art implies that impermissible sexual conduct is contained in the video.
(1) Statute requires "any visual depiction. . . of sexually explicit conduct"--the dvd has that, in the form of the actual pornographic video it contains.
(2) Statute requires that it be ". . . advertised, distributed, promoted or presented in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"--dvd has this as well. The cover is clearly an advertisement, distribution, promotion or presentation--pick one. The cover contains a picture of an actual minor "vamping," as another commenter put it, for the camera. This conveys the requisite "impression" that the subject matter contained in (1) is a "visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
To take the argument ad absurdum--if you had a non-sexually explicit cover of a 12-year old girl, and had a title such as "Porn with 12-year olds," you would fall under the child porn statute, even if the actual sexual content all involved legal-age people. Obviously, this case is not so obvious, but instead presents the question of whether the minor sufficiently looked like a minor to give the impression that the dvd was child porn. Arguably, she did not, but 1:24's question is actually very relevant, because if someone could be charged over this video, then they could be charged even more readily for a younger-looking but legally-aged person appearing on their cover.