> One other thing relating to the title: She asserts that the movie itself is illegal (and thus not copyrightable) due to the company engaging in “solicitation,

> One other thing relating to the title: She asserts that the movie itself is illegal (and thus not copyrightable) due to the company engaging in “solicitation, conspiracy to commit prostitution, pimping and/or pandering,” during its production. This was the only interesting argument in the bunch, and while its success would theoretically get her out of her jam, it would mainly just mean a lot of porn would suddenly be illegal in the US. Which should be the first big red flag as to that particular argument's legitimacy. I know they put every possible argument out... but yeah, it's basically asking for the court to set a new precedent on whether or not particular methods of producing pornography - methods in wide use - are legal. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of these methods, actually, though as a layperson I'd have trouble believing they'd be prohibited by any existing laws. But for example, College Rules is this creepy kinda crowdsourcing of amateur college porn... they pay a tiny $10,000 if you send them a porno you make with college students with enough "good footage" to make it on the site. And "good footage" means you have sex, and it means you can't have your face blurred, and they make you sign the documents and send in IDs to do it. And from what I can tell every one that makes the cut has at least 4 different people in it - most have more - so each person is actually doing it for a couple grand. And like... the people talk about the money in the videos to reassure themselves... which is extra creepy, especially when it's really so little money for something like that. I have to think some of these people would never do it if it weren't for student loan debts. I don't know. I watch porn, and think there's some seriously borderline coercion stuff out there that's perfectly legally protected.