Pondering--I thought the FAQ/TOS would need a section on tagging some artwork explicit and potentially requiring a non-explicit thumbnail version of it, and an age warning on the site.
I'd picked up the impression, during Strikethrough, that some images were legal for adults but not for minors, hence the 18+ restrictions on some magazine sales. But wading through California law bits online (which is what I checked then, because LJ was in CA), all I can find is notes that "harmful matter" a.k.a. "obscene matter" can't be sold to minors. And to be "harmful," it has to lack serious artistic value.
I won't say "all fanart has serious artistic value," but I'm comfortable with the statement that most of it does. The OTW may, however, want to be ready to describe the artistic value of some of the more explicit pieces on the site, or assist the artists in describing that value in a way that a court would accept. (I can see a potential need for more write-ups like icarus' review of Ponderosa's artwork and the ban, about one of the pieces connected to Boldthrough.)
no subject
I'd picked up the impression, during Strikethrough, that some images were legal for adults but not for minors, hence the 18+ restrictions on some magazine sales. But wading through California law bits online (which is what I checked then, because LJ was in CA), all I can find is notes that "harmful matter" a.k.a. "obscene matter" can't be sold to minors. And to be "harmful," it has to lack serious artistic value.
I won't say "all fanart has serious artistic value," but I'm comfortable with the statement that most of it does. The OTW may, however, want to be ready to describe the artistic value of some of the more explicit pieces on the site, or assist the artists in describing that value in a way that a court would accept. (I can see a potential need for more write-ups like