RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Speaking as an artist who sells work, and for many friends who sell online - this could open up a huge can of worms for artists. What if they don't use a model? I know I don't always - and so, I can't 'prove' who my work is of. What about people who enjoy posing for body parts, but don't wish to have their face plastered everywhere and are used for body art or photography? I know I have worked with people who would prefere to remain anon and earn a living from torso shots or footwork. It isn't just about protecting the innocent, peoples livelihoods are at stake.

Without Monet, what about Renoir, and visa versa?
What now of work by Tracy Emin?

One law starts - another comes along that will ultimately effect you. It isn't fair to attack peoples opinions and come down so hard without realising that people might not agree with you.
I truely don't understand the mentality of people attacking each other in such ways instead of just discussing such an important subject. It is about peoples freedoms. Peoples rights to be protected, yes, but also people right to express themselves in a way without being condemmed and judged for what they do.

Peace and Love

I totally understand - but the law is pretty open to being exaggerated by any extremists that might decide to wage a campaign on what they 'see' as porn.

Also - what about people who don't wish to be identified because they want to protect themself because of cultural issues? What about digital manipulation photography? It is basically providing a list of people who consent to images of sexual nature. Or even social. I know an artist who took photographs of mutilated men and women - this raised much needed money for a charity. However, some of those models would have been killed if it was discovered they had been party to it. I know it may seem that people might be taking an extreme view of this law, but to claim its about protecting the innocent from manipulation would be an understatement, truely. It's just another law to allow the powers that be to gain insight into peoples lives. It is an infringment of privacy, no more, no less.

Peace and Love

Yikes - I don't mean this to sound mean or sarcastic, truely, but if a person believes that, then a person believes anything.

And even if it were true that governments only would be privy to such information, isn't that the last people you would want to know such if you were in that situation?

15 odd years ago, people were leaving SA just because to stay would have been suicide. And that governments used personal information to raid peoples homes. It happened then, it still happens now.

In canada, a man could be arrested and placed into psyc units because of his fetish.

In the US, people can carry arms, yet for another country to hold them in self protection, is seen as an obvious threat.

Peoples freedoms and rights are being violated. It isn't about protecting, it is all about control. The laws already in place do infringe already - just because people are becoming more aware and deciding to question amendments to older laws just proves that people are more aware of whats happening around them and to their privacy.

As an artist, laws don't protect my rights or the coyrights - its made to provide protection for the larger corperations and agencies who make the BIG money by manipulating my rights and others.

Peace and Love