This is what needs to be stopped.
Call to action, please redistribute widely.
The Stop Porn Culture Slide Show Training Program includes a script, tips for conducting the session; it also includes the power Point Visual presentation, which contains pornographic material. They are saying that this slide show falls under the preview of Fair Use.
However, as it can now be watched, downloaded, viewed, reproduced, and yes, even sold, the creators of Stop Porn Culture, or anyone and everyone else who wishes to showcase, distribute, or otherwise use the material in the slide show is in violation of Federal Law 2257.
Never mind that not a one of the performers featured in this “educational tool” were asked their opinions, or for their consent, nor were the companies that originally produced the images…but now see, there are questions of a Federal Law which applies to Pornographers, and as these people have essentially made themselves such, the law also applies to them. Any person exhibiting pornography, even if it is free, is beholden to 2257, this includes SPC, and those who run this seminar. You will note, at the end of the presentation, there is a claim of copyright over images already subject to copyright, and used without permission.
You will also note, their attempts to keep this material out of the hands of minors are scant at best.
I encourage everyone to write a letter of protest the organizers of the SPC Training Program, inform anyone and everyone you know who is pondering doing one of these sessions of the lack of 2257 compliance and lack of consent on the part of the performers and owners of the images, and if necessary, alert legal authorities to the use of this slideshow where ever it may occur.
Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors…oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things… do the same laws not apply?
Enough. If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Have you contacted the feds or any of the original copyright holders about this too?
They might have more clout...
What is the legal status of 2257? I thought 2257, at least for non-producers, was struck down in court about six months ago or so.
But as far as "making it available where minors can see it", if it applies to John Stagliano, it certainly applies to Stop Porn Culture.
On the issue of pure copyright, I think the slide show definitely falls under the heading of "fair use". On a larger ethical level, using somebody as a poster girl for your cause when, in all likelihood, they don't even agree with that cause or want to be "rescued" by you is dodgy politics and objectification in the most literal sense.
IACB- at this point, like it or not, because they have posted a downloadable version and sent out discs of the slideshow, they've BECOME secondary producers...who are beholden to 2257.
And the availabilty to minors is surely a violation of law.
See, if they'd confined this to academic settings, Fair Use is can be claimed, but now that anyone with a net connection can see it, for..ahem...non academic reasons? Hummmm.
I will circulate this to everyone/everywhere I can think of. I'll repost it on the Sex 2.0 blog and send it to some email lists and post a MySpace bulleting, for starts. You should post it on Bound Not Gagged, too!
Can the performers sue for having their images used without their permission? If so, I hope they do in droves. Other than that, what federal agency do we report Dines and SPC to for their violation of 2257?
I also want to say it's especially hypocritical that they have this slide show because part of why they say all visual porn is bad is that all visual porn is supposedly a film or photo of a "rape" that continues to humiliate the "victim". You'd think that if that were true (or at least, if the SPC people really believed their own rhetoric) they would be ESPECIALLY eager to get the consent of the performers and perhaps even have the performers give written or spoken commentary to go with the pictures.
I'll be linking this during the next week.
Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors…oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things… do the same laws not apply?
Hmmmmmmm. Very interesting.
"See, if they'd confined this to academic settings, Fair Use is can be claimed, but now that anyone with a net connection can see it, for..ahem...non academic reasons? Hummmm."
No, I'm pretty sure Fair Use applies to non-academic settings, too. In fact, I think the blogosphere would be in big trouble with out it. On that level, Dines and company have a very good legal case for showing portions of copyrighted porn in order to criticize it.
Ethically, they're on really poor ground, for all the reasons Catseye pointed out, and the fact that they themselves are carrying out a rather extreme form of the very objectification they denounce. A woman who allows her images be used to construct a boy-toy fantasy for some website has given her signed consent to do so. Did they ever sign up to be Dines poster girl victim? I don't think so.
Now as far as 2257 goes, its legal status is kind of in limbo since last year's court decision, but presumably its still in effect everywhere except the states in the 6th Appellate District (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). And there are definitely laws about potentially exposing minors to porn, and definitely no exceptions there for "educational use". Its a law that when it comes to the net at least, exists more in the breach than the observance, but as you pointed out, if John Stagliano is going to be up on charges with this law, there's no reason the other side should be getting carte blanche.
It would figure, then, that I live in the bloody 6th Appellate District. How lovely.
Sometimes the trackbacks work, and sometimes they don't:
Odds and Sods - post-frenectomy edition
Hello Ren,
What do you mean by "carded"?
Anony- Carded= having one's i.d. looked at to prove age.
Post a Comment