On the question of pornography…

In a lengthy comment in another post, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt attempts to answer some of the questions I have asked of him.  I asked them with no conditions and no requirements.  In another post, I told him that I didn’t think that the comment could be handled fairly in the comments and instead I would break them down into smaller chunks and deal with them as posts instead of as comments.  He is free to return to the comment section of the posts and, remembering my rule that comments should be marginally topical, my respond.  If, after commenting and such, I feel that the question has been answered, I will included it in one more edition of Questions for Bill Schmalfeldt, with his answer.  Then the question will be dropped from the series.  I am the arbitrator of what gets dropped.

Now with the rules of the game established, and by reference all of the I Haz Rulz still apply, I’m happy to go with the first of my chosen questions that Bill attempted to answer.

On the question of Pornography:

This is perhaps the question that is most closely associated to me personally.  I am a photographer, and I find it chilling that someone completely uninvolved in a work of photography would attempt to use law enforcement to harass a photographer.  I’ll admit that my interest in photography and law enforcement harassment is more geared toward true First Amendment issues and involve police claiming the illegal authority to keep you from photographing them on duty.  For more information on that, visit PINAC.

What follows is the first part of the question that I asked:

Bill Schmalfeldt one called the cops and accused a photographer of using underage models in the production of pornography.  He did so because the photographer didn’t provide Schmalfeldt with age verification information on his models, something that the photographer couldn’t give Schmalfeldt under penalty of federal law.  Schmalfeldt argued that he was required to give him the information.

Me from my blog

Bill had an issue with this.

I did not call the cops on (name redacted because I Haz Rulz). Let’s be straight on that. I filed a report detailing my suspicions. That was the extent of my involvement.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

While I would argue that I was using the term “call the cops” colloquially to mean “contact the authorities” and not literally picking up the phone, failing 911 and making a claim, I’ll concede that the language of the question was less than precise.  I have learned elsewhere, from a long since memory holed website of Bill’s that what he did was…

I asked (redacted) to produce just the one model release form. Then I found the four other suspect photos. Since (redacted) refused to answer my legitimate question about the model release forms, and being the father of daughters, I then turned to the only other resources available to me. The Dallas Police Department, which turned the information over to an investigative unit, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the American Sites Associated with Child Protection. (Redacted) will HAVE to show the model release forms to THEM.

Bill Schmalfeldt on a memory holed blog I was provided a screen capture

So while I don’t think my use of “called the cops” was unclear, in future versions of Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt I will instead use the phrase “Contacted the Dallas Police Department, which turned the information over to an investigative unit, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the American Sites Associated with Child Protection.” I hope that alleviates any confusion in the future.  Since with the corrections provide by Bill’s own words conclusively prove that the set up to the question is no longer in doubt, it shall stand until the actual final question of the is decided.

The next part of the question was about Bill producing pornography.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced a photograph of two men in either simulated or actual anal sex.  The picture had four models in it, since the faces of the body models where replaced by other faces.  Schmalfeldt then disseminated the pictures via Twitter.  By doing so, he came under the same record keeping requirements that he attempted to claim gave him the right to look at the records of the aforementioned photographer.

Me from my blog

Before getting into this too deeply, I will say that I may have been mistaken about the number of people involved in the actual photograph.  It may have been just three people involved.  I’m not sure, but have attempted contact with my primary source and will correct this as information comes in or Bill can correct the number of models involved in the production himself.  Although, it seems, that this is is response to this part of the question.

I didn’t produce any pornography.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

With that said, it would seem to put an end to the question.  Perhaps.  Or Perhaps not.

The next part of the question is the actual guts of the question at hand.

That said, Schmalfeldt was asked if he had the proper record keeping files of the four people in his pornography production.  Schmalfeldt has yet to answer this question.

Me on my blog

Bill responded.

I didn’t photograph any pornography, so records are not needed.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

Here is where things start to go south for Bill.  Either he is flat out calling other people liars and there is not currently sealed evidence in a courtroom of him tweeting a picture of pornagraphy and/or putting it on a blog somewhere that has since been memory holed, or he did post the picture.

If his stance is that he never posted that picture, then I’ll be forced to come close to closing this question.  His answer is that he didn’t produce pornography.  I am not ready to close this question.  At this point in the discussion I am not willing, yet, to reveal my source although anyone familiar with the case will know who I’m talking about.  But I’ll allow him a chance to enter the discussion in comments freely.  Alternatively, if anyone else who reads this has a screen capture of the alleged pornography, the comments are open.  Be forewarned, I’ll edit comments as needed, and the actual pornography will be blurred.

Now in interest of getting to the comments and the truth, I’m not going to go into details about the law that requires the keeping of records.  I can do that either in a separate blog post or perhaps in the comments.  But what is important here is what a producer is.

The law recognizes two types of producers.  From Bill’s statement that he “didn’t photograph any pornography” I am assuming that Bill doesn’t understand what the two types are, so I’m offering this as a clarification.  There are “First Producers” and “Second Producers.”  A First Producer is the person or company responsible for the creation of the pornography.  The studio, artist or whomever caused the pornography to be made and holds the copyright on that pornography.  The photographer may well be doing the work “for hire” and is not the producer, so you can be (and often is the case in the Adult Video Industry) the photographer but not the First Producer.  If Bill photoshopped an existing pornographic photograph with new face creating a derivative work under fair use of copyright, then he is the First Producer.

If Bill was given the work of someone else to disseminate, in other words he was licensed, hired, or asked to disseminate the work via his blog or twitter account, then he is what is known as the “Second Producer.” This happens all the time in the AVI.  Smaller firms license older pornography from larger firms and distribute them.

The thing is, in either situation, both the first producer and the second producer are under the same legal requirements to maintain the records.  The only difference is that a second producer can be absolved of the need to have the complete records if he has a signed certificate of records from the first producer, with the identifying information required.  If the second producer has such, even if the files of the first producer are insufficient, the second producer as an absolute defense against the law.

I also will say that what Bill was asking for isn’t the proper records that he needed to ask.  Model Release Forms are not required to be kept at this level under the law.  So since I have plenty of reasons from Bill’s own words that he doesn’t understand the record keeping requirements as well as he thought he did, that I do not find his answer sufficient to the question and ask Bill to clarify his answer with regards to this new information.

Comments are now open to all interested parties.

UPDATE: I missed a redaction. It has been fixed.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “On the question of pornography…

    • I happen to like onions. They don’t make me cry.

      Sometimes people don’t think they know as much as they think they know. I know I don’t know half of what I think I know. The trick is, are you willing to be taught.

  1. Reminder: The whole reason Bill was harassing (redacted) is because (redacted) wrote about (redacted). It’s unsure who originally invented the false claim that (redacted) produces illegal porn. But it is repeated by some socks and the idea of repeating it might be (redacted). And the socks might have been his. And the original idea.

    My point? The whole discussion about (redacted) and the law is due to (redacted) (redacted) lawfare harassment campaign. Conclusion? We should EVERYONE unite together and help each other criticize (redacted) and donate to his defendants. Please notice, the help must consist of ethical and just tactics only. The point is for justice to win, not for “our team” to win. Team alignment politics are divisive and serve as tools of liars like (redacted).

    p.s. (redacted)

    • I laughed out loud at what happened to my post. But I still want to know if I need to take the redactions more seriously. Michael, did you find my post off-topic? Or should I stop bringing up… hmm… Redact C. Redactedlin?

      • It was mostly off topic. I prefer to have my comments be mildly about the post your commenting on. I’ve let it slide now and again, mostly for the humor factor. And I don’t bring people’s names into things unless it is absolutely necessary. Just who I am.

        As for Redact C. Redactedlin, I’m sure I ‘ll write about him in the future. Till then, he will remain (redacted).

  2. In typical Schmalfeldt fashion, he takes a question that he understands perfectly well and then pretends that it means something that it doesn’t. Why does he do this? In my opinion it’s to hide his dishonesty. He can’t very well come out and say that he had no basis for his complaints to the police dept other then to harass someone that he doesn’t like. If Bill was an honest man (I know, I know) he would just admit that he was really mad and wanted to cause as much trouble for the man and his family as possible. But he denies and hides and deletes evidence of his dishonestly on a regular basis. It’s almost like a small child hiding and thinking that if they can’t see you, you can’t see them.

    • Then I ask This Blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt the question once again. Do you have the records? In accordance with the law?

    • No. I absolutely am not. I am simply asking if he kept to the same level of record keeping he demanded of other photographers. Since in an yet unapproved answer he said “See ya, toots.” which both makes me feel slightly creepy and totally disturbed, I assume the answer remains unanswered. I wonder if I should continue this series or send his lengthy comment to the waste bin.

  3. Creepiest thing he did with the issue of S’s pictures was take one that he insisted was an underage model (apparently anyone A-cup is underage) and ostensibly to preseve decency he photoshopped a Hello Kitty bikini top onto the picture then renewed his wailing at increased volume about how this was obviously a child. Way to try and propagandize the issue there Chuckles. As compensation I’d like for him to appear at all hearing of the copyright suit with a thousand pirated video copies glued all over him.

    • While I’m sure that his work meets his own definition of Fair Use, it does’t rise to the level of pornography. Creepy? Yes. Slightly revolting? Yes. Stalkerish? I’d say yes. But not pornography.

Comments are closed.