The content below is organized based on the **single source (blog scraped text)** provided. ✅ It is not confirmed as fact, but is treated only in the tone of **‘mentioned/known/assumed as’** based on the expressions written in the article. --- ## 1) What does the source say? The core of the scraped article is the claim, as the title suggests, that **“there was a contract for permission to take a creampie in fc2’s AV contract.”** The following points are also mentioned in the article: - It is written that **it was “confiscated by the Nagasaki Prefectural Police”** - So the sentence flow suggests that **“there must have been some kind of incident”** - A mention that he “heard” that production contracts have become complicated due to the **AV New Law** - The surprise that there “were” contracts not only for the **‘proper AV’** that we commonly see, but also for the so-called **‘doujin AV’** - And it emphasizes that **there were also items related to censorship** > ⚠️ However, the original text of the contract, the specific circumstances of the incident, the statements of the parties, etc. cannot be confirmed with just the scrap text.
--- ## 2) What the expression ‘confiscated contract’ could mean (assumed) The writer **assumes** that “if it was confiscated, there must have been some kind of incident.” Looking at this sentence alone, there is room for the reader to interpret it as follows. - ✅ It suggests that it is not a simple leak/disclosure, but **a document secured during the investigation process** - ⚠️ However, **what kind of incident**, what procedure was used to seize it, and what the scope of the document is are not in the scrap. That is, **the word ‘seized’ itself has a strong nuance**, but it is difficult to determine the background with the current data alone.
--- ## 3) Regarding the part where it says, “There were contracts in doujin AVs” The article says something like, “There were contracts not only in the proper AVs we see, but also in the so-called doujin AVs.” The key points to be read here are as follows. - 🔥 It raises the issue that **contract documents can exist even in areas recognized as doujin (indie/individual production)** - ✅ It suggests that **agreement documents can be exchanged** in filming, distribution, appearance, etc., regardless of the production type. However, this is also closer to **the observation/surprise** of the article, and it is difficult to confirm it like a general rule across the industry.
--- ## 4) Interpretation brought about by the mention of ‘items for permission to censorship’ The most emphasized part in the article is **“There was also an item about censorship!!”**. And then they show a surprised reaction as if to say, “So what we were seeing was ‘real censorship’”. - ✅ Nuance of the source article: **If there is an item in the contract, doesn’t that mean there was an actual act** - ⚠️ However, with only the scrap text - it is impossible to confirm **what wording** the item was - **what the scope/conditions of the permission** were - **how it was implemented** in the actual filming. Therefore, it is safe to summarize this part as “It is *mentioned* that there was an item in the contract, and the writer *assumed* that it was actual based on that.”
--- ## 5) Rumor (hearsay) that contracts have become complicated due to the new AV law In the scrap article, there is a sentence like “I also heard that contracts for production of works have become complicated due to the new AV law.” - ✅ The important thing here is the expression **‘hearsay’** - ⚠️ That is, the article itself does not cite legal provisions or present specific cases. Therefore, it is safer to read this section as **mention based on industry experience/rumor**.
--- ## 6) Limitations of this article (source) and how to read it The source blog has a notice phrase at the top of the text such as **“This blog contains affiliate advertisements”**, and the development of the article is a mixture of ‘surprise/guess/impression’. Therefore, the following is recommended when using the information. - ✅ **You need to check the original text (article linked to ‘Original article is here’)** to know more context (there is no linked text in the scrapbook) - ⚠️ Words like ‘confiscation’ and ‘permission contract’ can be provocative, so **do not assert facts without additional sources** - ✅ The only thing that can be said for sure in the text is “There is a blog post that **mentioned that**”
--- ## 7) Summary checklist - ✅ The source article **mentioned that there was a permission clause for reprinting in the FC2 AV contract** - ✅ The expression **Confiscated by the Nagasaki Prefectural Police** appears (the nature of the incident is assumed by the author) - ✅ Emphasizes that **there were contracts in doujin AV as well** - ⚠️ The original text of the contract, the circumstances of the incident, and whether or not actual filming took place **cannot be confirmed based on the scrapbook text alone**
--- ## 8) Questions to check further regarding this (for verification, not speculation) When reading a review/hearsay article, it is helpful to separate the ‘verifiable facts’ from ‘interpretation’ by asking the following questions. 1) Is the **seizure entity/case name/date** confirmed? 2) Is the **full text (original text)** of the relevant clause in the contract disclosed? 3) Is it clear whether the meaning of ‘permission’ is **permission to act or scope of production/expression**? 4) Is it cross-confirmed with **official documents/reports**, not the writer’s guess?
--- ### Conclusion Based on the provided scrap text, it can be confirmed that the blog post is expressing surprise by saying **“there was a clause permitting re-exportation in the FC2 AV contract”**. However, it is difficult to determine the facts beyond that (whether it is real or not, the specifics of the case) without additional materials, and for now, it is safe to understand it at the level of **“it was mentioned that way”**.
