You know that t-shirt that says, "why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

Well, Renegade Evolution asks, "why do we use pornographic images without the actors' or photographers' consent and without paying them royalties to show that pornography is exploitative?"

Think about it. Anti-porn bloggers and writers are using images that they have not gotten permission to use. Further, they are not paying royalties for their use.

This means that they are ripping off the people who made these images.

I think it's a damn good point. The question is, why is it considered ok? I suspect the answer is 1) that the images are being used to educate, and that it is necessary to see the images in order to really understand the issues that the activists want to address, and 2) that because they are being used to educate, they fall under fair use.

However, selling these images on DVDs for $5 a piece does not constitute fair use under any sense of the term. In fact, unlike an article in a book, which I could make one copy of for myself, films are protected against "unlawful copying" and I would not be allowed to copy all or part of a film. Visual images, too, have different copyright laws, I believe. And, just as it is not an infringement to sell copies of the hypothetical article, even if I don't charge beyond the actual copying costs, nor could I sell copies of the DVD.

What this means is that if a person wanted to, she could probably land the conference in question in legal hot water...so, Ren, you just need to find the right person to get the DVD to...