GirlChat #456665
Kind of a hard argument to make...
Posted by lgsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 21:15:51 EST, Tuesday
In reply to The IWF are factually correct... posted by Llort on 2008-December-09 11:19:11 EST, Tuesday
...when the album itself, with that cover, has been sold in the UK for decades without the cover ever getting anyone arrested for sale or possession. The fact that this is not some obscure image from god-knows-where undermines the "potential" in "potentially illegal". If it was illegal, someone would already have been actually prosecuted for it, or they would be right now moving against all retailers and all buyers in Britain. Unless that happens, I don't see how they can argue that it's potentially illegal (not under a kp statute anyway - copyright might and does apply :p) to post on wikipedia but not to physically possess or advertise and sell.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- You're not from the UK, are you? - Llort on 2008-December-09 22:52:09 EST, Tuesday - (1 / 0 / 4)
- on wikipedia?? - LGsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 23:17:07 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: on wikipedia?? - Llort on 2008-December-10 12:28:31 EST, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- Llort is correct that image is illegal in the UK - shellban on 2008-December-11 03:19:15 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- No one knows for sure what is illegal in the UK... - Llort on 2008-December-12 00:23:48 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Llort is correct that image is illegal in the UK - shellban on 2008-December-11 03:19:15 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: on wikipedia?? - Llort on 2008-December-10 12:28:31 EST, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- on wikipedia?? - LGsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 23:17:07 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)