The problem is this, those strict government laws about the age of stars in adult movies only deal with those in the actual movie and specifically those performing the sexual acts.

Since Lara Jade was not in the video and was not unclothed or otherwise engaging in a sexual act, the fact that she was fourteen at the time doesn’t enter into it.

I find this disgusting because it means you could take a picture of just about anyone, even a child, and put it on the cover of such a DVD and not face charges in that area. In fact, so long as you cleared the other rights, it could be completely legal.

I find that horrible and both Harrison and myself agree that has to change and soon.

Hope that clarifies it!

But it made me think of something. Shouldn’t TVX also be held liable for using a photograph on an underage individual in connection to pornographic material? I realize it’s essentially a different case, but also one where the evidence seems overwhelming.

Lorelle:I couldn’t agree more, this is one of those cases that got under my skin very bad. I talk regularly with Harrison about this case and he keeps me in the loop. More than just a copyright interest, I have a personal sense of outrage in this matter.

Still, it is a strange case with many aspects floating around. I don’t think the question of a different medium has much play in here just because it is obviously a direct copy, the question is how much is the company liable for? I doubt that anyone would make a case that there was no copyright infringement in this use.

However, as we’ve both said, this one will likely hinge on jurisdictional issues. However, even if it does get tossed out, I don’t expect it to end there. Others are looking at this company closely and there is always the possibility of a refile.

Copyright infringement is the same in sunny Tampa as it is in the Texas desert. I don’t think they’ll be able to run far from this one.

I’ve been involved and watched many similar cases dealing with photography, so this one will be on my watch list, without a doubt. One case involved a photographer who was traveling with his wife. They randomly chose an interesting restaurant with a second floor balcony, went upstairs, sat down, and stared at his photograph painted on the side of a building across the street.

He won, in spite of the fact that the photograph had been copied in paint, mostly because the accuracy of the painting was accurate right down to the sparkle in the deer’s eye on the wall. Every detail. But what a shock and how it made for a miserable meal. It took a long time to process, but it set a standard for copying in a different medium.

The jurisdiction issue is one that may, as you say, kill this, but I’m with the wronged parties. I do hope they can get to the person/company who misrepresented the usage of the photograph, as they are the real criminals, if not to the users of the image.

Thanks again. This is wonderful and will definitely create new law if it gets that far. Wow.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Web 2.0 is certainly springing a whole new age of copyright, privacy and censorship issues.