Confession, it’s good for the soul.

A certain Whiney Maryland Spectre (WMS), who appears to dislike it when Running Wolf Blog (RWB) uses his real name, must feel better today.  RWB hopes that all the good things happening in the world of the WMS has helped to alleviate the pain WMS has recently been complaining about.  RWB hopes WMS doesn’t overdue the celebrating and actually aggravate the issue behind the pain.

Despite the WMS’s well earned celebratory moment, RWB is prouder of the WMS for his confession the other day.  Confession is, after all, good for the soul.

Two days ago RWB published an article about the WMS’s producing pornography. In that article, RWB was very clear about the terms production/producer/producing.   Specifically, RWB was referring to section 2257, which defines the record keeping responsibilities of porn producer, and who is defined as a producer under the law.  According to WMB’s confession the WMB is not a first producer, but is a second producer in that he took porn already in existence (or so WMS claims) and posted it to twitter.  So everything RWB posted has been proven as true by the WMS’s own confession.  And here, for your reading pleasure, is that confession.

Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.58.06Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.58.39Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.59.11Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.59.32

So again, RWB thanks the WMS for the confession.  You’ll note that the WMS confesses to every aspect alleged by RWB.  The WMS admits to having the pornography, and disseminating the pornogrphy by posting it to both his blog and to Twitter.  That meets the definition of second producer exactly, and this confession (minus the ramblings about Mr. Hoge) matches what was posted by RWB earlier.

I’m sure today’s celebrations were aided by the weight lifted of of the WMS’s soul by confessing to this issue.

RWB would like to also note it’s concurrence that pornography is not automatically obscene.  But would also like to point out that what is obscene, and which may include some pornography, is not decided on a national basis, but a community standard basis.  So what is not obscene in NYC may be obscene in Gadsden, Alabama.

Advertisements

The Answers Of Bill Schmalfeldt, on the issue of pornography.

Bill Schmalfeldt has been asked on this blog a number of questions over the past month or so.  Until yesterday, he has refused to answer any of the questions Running Wolf Blog has put forth.  Yesterday, he finally answered all of Running Wolf Blog’s questions, however it wasn’t as forthcoming as you might think.  Schmalfeldt answered the dozen or so question this blog had with a single answer, and Running Wolf Blog quotes…

“None of your fucking business.”

– Bill Schmalfeldt in response to Running Wolf Blog’s “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt” post on this blog.

The very first question Running Wolf Blog had for Mr. Schmalfeldt dealt with his record keeping habits for the pornography he produced.  Several years ago, Mr. Schmalfeldt harassed a photographer in Texas, insisting he provide the legal paperwork required in the production of pornography.  Since the paperwork would reveal personally identifiable information, under federal law the photographer could not provide what Mr. Schmalfeldt was asking for.  Based on the photographer’s lack of response, Mr. Schmalfeldt filed a report with various Texas authorities.  In the end, once the properly authorized individuals could review the photographers records, no charges were filed against the photographer.

Shortly after Mr. Schmalfeldt made the complaints against the photographer in Texas, Schmalfeldt produced his own version of pornography.  He produced an image of two men engaged in either simulated or actual anal intercourse, and replaced the faces of the actual models hired with the faces of at least one other person. (Side note: for the purposes of this article, Running Wolf Blog is using the term “producer” as indicated in Section 2257 of Federal Code, which governs the record keeping requirements of producers of pornography.) Running Wolf Blog is in possession of multiple versions of the image, since original copyright holders apparently objected to the use of their intellectual property for Mr. Schmalfeldt’s use, this blog is not 100% sure which image is the final product.

However, a final product that used a fellow blogger’s image was used, replacing the face of a model in the original image.  Running Wolf Blog has it on faith and belief that the blogger who’s facial image used in the final product did not sign a waiver or an age release form with the producer of the image, Mr Schmalfeldt.

Running Wolf Blog asked Mr. Schmalfeldt if he maintained the same record keeping protocols he demanded the Texas photographer turn over to him.  Mr. Schmalfeldt, for over a month, has refused to answer the question until yesterday.  His answer, “none of your fucking business.”

Since receiving that answer, Running Wolf Blog contacted the Baltimore office of the FBI to see what the FBI’s interest in illegal online pornography.  The agent we spoke to, on the condition of anonymity, indicated that the FBI’s primary interest in online pornography has been child pornography.  Generally, the FBI does not handle other types of pornography, even though the record keeping law is a federal law.  When provided with the details at issue with Schmalfeldt’s production of pronogrophy, the agent wondered if this couldn’t be a case of revenge porn, since it is believed that at least one face model was unwillingly included.  The agent indicated that recently the FBI arrested several Revenge Porn Kingpins, including Hunter Moore, and as a revenge porn case there could be interest.

Running Wolf Blog is under no illusion that the very busy office of the Baltimore FBI, which is one of the main offices outside of Washington DC handling the investigation of terrorism in and around the nation’s capitol, will be overly interested in the production of pornography in the shadow of the Nation’s capitol.  Nevertheless, the question was asked, the answer (as insulting as it was) was given, and if the FBI is ever willing to focus on this problem, Running Wolf Blog ensures our readers that the FBI has the full cooperation of our resources on this issue.

Running Wolf Blog wishes to thank Mr. Schmalfeldt for his honest answer to our question on the production of pornography. Running Wolf blog will cover the answers to other questions of Mr. Schmalfeldt at a later date.  This blog is thankful to all our readers for their continuing support and the plethora of information and screen captures that readers have provided.  Since receiving a definitive answer from Mr. Schmalfeldt, we can finally proceed with our investigation into the various issues raised.  Running Wolf Blog promises our readership to fully investigate Mr. Schmalfeldt’s answer(s) as fully as possible.  More Answers of Bill Schmalfeldt stories are in the pipeline.

In Response to Bill Schmalfeldt’s none responsive responses.

So earlier today, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt asked your host the following question…

And since when does it matter what I say? I’ve been rebutting these fools for over a year and they just ignore my rebuttals and continue to make the defamatory statements. What should make me believe that anything will be different on your blog?

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

The simple answer is, I’m not one of those fools.  I’ve given Bill every benefit of the doubt.  I’ve explained my interest in the questions I’ve asked and he has yet to answer specifically and on the posts that I’ve asked the questions. I’m an extreme newcomer to this game, and Bill has yet to successfully rebut anything I’ve asked, posted or said.  His whining about other people will carry zero weight here.

And just to show I’m a stand up guy, I’ll now comment on a part of Bill’s lengthy answer to my Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt that has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.  But I will redact it, which upsets Bill for some reason, because the redactions make absolutely no difference to the result.

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was engaging in underage pornography and then do nothing. You are worse than the kiddie porn artist if that is the case.

(redacted) admits selling his (redacted) for sex. He published several websites to that effect. What does that make him? What does that make her?

And he told three different stories about the tragic death of his (redacted). I tried to find out which of the stories was the right one. He ignored me. Knowing him to be a fraud and a grifter, to be honest, I didn’t think there WAS a dead baby. And yes, I think (redacted) — who slut shamed a rape victim in order to get new teeth — is low enough to lie about a dead baby to raise funds. He lied about my alleged “rape threat” to raise funds. He’s a walking, talking, fundraising machine, and nobody EVER gets what they pay for.’

Bill Schmalfeldt in an unapproved comment to this blog

I’m going to put this into context by saying that the redacted individual is the photographer that spurned the question about Bill’s pornography that he has, as of this writing, not answered about.  This is, as best as I can tell, his reason for involving law enforcement over a photographers pictures.  Left alone, it is pretty convincing.  Perhaps I can make it less so.

Let’s start with the first statement, “Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.” I’ll start my rebuttal by saying if anyone really had strong suspicions about abusing children and looked the other way, that would be disgusting.  But Bill didn’t have “strong suspicions.”  He didn’t even have mild suspicions.  He didn’t have weak suspicions.  He only had fabricated suspicions.

I can’t even explain how weak and absurd his suspicions were without bringing in the next quote.  Which is, “Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was engaging in underage pornography and then do nothing. You are worse than the kiddie porn artist if that is the case.”  Again, had he had strong suspicions, I’d agree.  But he didn’t.  His suspicions were weak to none existent, despite his claim.

Let me build the case for you, again without citing sources because I’ll give them plenty of chances to reveal themselves in comments.  Bill had absolutely no reason to suspect that the photographer was using underage models.  Better yet, the pictures that so upset him were taken prior to 2009, and in that legal space, were not pornography.  Even after 2009, when the laws changed, the pictures still most likely would not be considered pornography.  Either way, since there was no pornography in question, there could be no “kiddie porn” in question.  Had Bill understood the law and the issue better, he would have known this.

As to the issue of underage models, he had no realistic reason to suspect such.  The photographs in question were displayed both on the photographer’s website and in galleries.  That alone presupposes that the models in question were of age.  The photographer in question even said, on his website, that the models were of age.  Not explicitly, but it was heavily implied.  In other words, Bill took it upon himself to judge if the models were underage and determine that his wild speculation was “strong suspicion” that the photographer was involved in kiddie porn.  I think the motivation is best explained by another commenter to this blog.

Creepiest thing he did with the issue of (redacted)’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.

Kyle Kiernan in an approved post on this blog

I don’t know that gluing videos is a proper response, but the rest of the comment it spot on.  Bill did his best to portray that the photographer was engaged in “kiddie porn” when he had no real reason to assume the photographer was engaged in kiddie porn.  He had no contact with the models, except for the one he ignored who contacted him to prove she wan’t the photographer’s wife and who was clearly not a kid.  He had zero reason except for his own fantasizes to assume anyone was underage in any of the pictures.

But having legal models didn’t fit into his narrative.  He needed the models to be underage for the first bit, and that is abusing children.  Again, Bill had never met the kids in question.  He had no idea what kind of relationship the photographer had with these kids.  None.  Zero.  What he had was his incomplete and misunderstood doxing of the photographer.  He thought he had his home address, but instead he had the photographer’s studio.  Based on his unconfirmed information, Bill leapt to the conclusion that the photographer was shooting erotic (but not pornographic) photography in his home.  This was worse than a lie.  This was a complete misuse of facts.

Bill did not fact check his information.  He did not even make sure that the address he had was residential.  (It wasn’t)  He had no information or reason to believe that the photographers children were ever present at any erotic (but not pornographic) photo shoot.  There was absolutely zero “strong suspicions”  and was only, at my most generous, innuendo.

But innuendo is enough for Bill.  He contacted the authorities.  He published the photographers personally identifying information on the web.  On the basis of nothing less than innuendo.  Not “strong” suspicion.  Innuendo.

So now that the first two comments are destroyed, let’s move one.  This is his next claim… “(redacted) admits selling his (redacted) for sex. He published several websites to that effect. What does that make him? What does that make her?”  The photographer in question never offered the person who has never been involved with anything concerning Bill for sex.  Ever.  I challenge Bill, here and now, to provide evidence to the contrary.  What he did do is offer to provide interested models with other models for the purpose of erotic (but not pornographic) photography. He also offered models a personal delivery and discussion of the final prints for a fee.  Bill decided to use innuendo and not facts to imply that the personal delivery meant sex.

That is not remotely true.  I am a photographer.  I’ve been hired to do shoots on a number of things, but not erotic photography.  I will tell you now, I charge extra for me to spend my time to sit down with a client, go over the photographs, and discuss possible changes in cropping, retouching, or anything else related to the photographs.  You hire me for my skills.  You can either accept my product, or pay me to discuss changes to the products.  My willingness to let you pay me for that discussion is not an offer of sexual favors of any kind.

As to the last bit, as stated I have little issue with it.  Had it happened the way Bill implies.  But it didn’t.  Bill didn’t write about how the photographer in question may or may not have tried to use the death to raise funds.  Bill insulted the cause of death.  Bill insulted the reality of the death.  Bill demanded answers he had no right to receive, and when he didn’t get them, he insulted and demanded more.  Had Bill simply written a story about his suspicions and/or drew the other inferences in a journalistic way, I’d be silent on this.  Bill didn’t.  Others have shown the truth about what I’m saying.  I’ll just say that Bill acted badly.

I will touch on one other thing.  I think I know who the rape victim who was allegedly slut shamed is.  I’m unaware of the photographer doing so.  But if he did, I find it appalling.  The woman in question here was at best mislead and at worst raped.  I may go into that story in more detail later.  But since her attacker was a darling of certain circles, instead of calling out the attacker, certain people attacked the woman.  That is dangerous territory and if the photographer did engage in those tactics, then shame on him.  I’ve been working on a post about the incident, and will get around to posting it soon.  But in at least that small part, I think I’m actually in agreement with Bill.

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.