4 ms·

Complaint "(f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in

Complaint "(f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video an" Court ruling summary "OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma." So bottom line, a pornographic video distrbutor doesn't have the legal responsibility to ask for proof that the subjects of the video consent to being recorded and distributed? Sounds like an easy bipartisan law to pass right? I get that it may not be the case for filming people walking on the streets, but if there's fucking there should be a verification system similar to the one I have to do when I open an bank account or whatever, you know where they scan your id and ask you to make a video saying you consent to opening an account or to put your face closer or farther from the camera? Call your senator type of deal?

TZubiri 2y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct— (1)ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations; (2)ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and (3)record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation." I mean, this seems like a basic requirement to verify everyone is of age. Did the rapist send ids and names to OnlyFans or something?
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  The source page you cited, i.e the law, explicitly says the text you quoted applies to only producers and does not apply to distributors like OF.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    The definitions in the law "(2)the term “produces”— (A)means— (i)actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being; " (ii)digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or (iii)inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and (B)does not include activities that are limited to— (i)photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplication; (ii)distribution; (iii)any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers; (iv)the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or (v)the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication; and" The actual arguments would be lengthy for both parties, OF would want to be categorized as a distributor or ISP, which are in the NOT category. I would argue, and the plaintiff would, that they are publishers. The commercial intentions are mentioned, which was dismissed as irrelevant in the case.

TZubiri 2y ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct— (1)ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations; (2)ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and (3)record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation." I mean, this seems like a basic requirement to verify everyone is of age. Did the rapist send ids and names to OnlyFans or something?

ivewonyoung 2y ago
The source page you cited, i.e the law, explicitly says the text you quoted applies to only producers and does not apply to distributors like OF.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  The definitions in the law "(2)the term “produces”— (A)means— (i)actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being; " (ii)digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or (iii)inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and (B)does not include activities that are limited to— (i)photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplication; (ii)distribution; (iii)any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers; (iv)the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or (v)the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication; and" The actual arguments would be lengthy for both parties, OF would want to be categorized as a distributor or ISP, which are in the NOT category. I would argue, and the plaintiff would, that they are publishers. The commercial intentions are mentioned, which was dismissed as irrelevant in the case.