Would this picture be subject to the new 2257?

I was wondering the same thing. If their is no nudity like Maxim or FHM is it not considered 'sexually explicit'?

Im not a lawyer or an expert but I do believe that nudity, tits, ass, genitals are exempt from 2257 b/c their not sexually explicit. Now if the same girl had a dildo in her mouth or a vibrator in her pussy then it would sexually explicit.

But maybe a safer standard would be to ask yourself "Would that picture of whatever the girl is doing in it be acceptable if the girl was under 18?" and in that case I dont think a topless 17 yr old would be acceptable.

I'm interested in what some others have to say on this.

(1) ?minor? means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

people should also pay close attention to the last section of this also...

(8) ?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where?
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

Move your servers to Singapore and go beast

here is a novel idea...pay the damn retainer for a laywer, and you cain ask them ANYTHING you want ANYTIME

Step back to about 2 weeks ago when I went on a rampage about "Seemingly" under age content.

Does

"Am I legal?" ring a bell?
People called me an idiot just two weeks ago when I said they would end up out of business. I even warned about changes.

Oh no Alienq is right again...

I know its a bit hard seeing so many 2257 threads , and your advice is the best to do but gfy is the best place to discuss it..

I have discussed the 2257 stuff with a few lawyers , and they are all going to give you a range...

First they will explain what the law means , and basically if followed to the letter , it means the end to tgp's unless you have lots of employees to file info all day long.. Basically impossible, and every lawyer will tell you google is violating it right now.. the most lenient view puts it basically how it is now , so you have to have info on the pages explaining where 2257 info can be found ..

Any lawyer will take your case, but if a lawyer advised you to always follow the law they would be out of work just like "pest control", lawyers make more money having you get busted while on retainer than they do not having you busted while on retainer right ?

If your 2bit then just follow the lead of the bigger companies, if your a big company then your not reading my post your letting your lawyers worry about it..

So yes get a lawyer , but lets also discuss it

im lost

Well tits aren't considered genitals (at least I don't think they are?) so I guess topless would be OK.

I noticed there's no mention of bodily fluids in there. Quite a loophole. Wouldn't it be hilarious if in their efforts to rid the net of porn all they did was get more bukakke sites on the net? So long as there's no cocks in the picture it looks like it would be ok without 2257 info according this list.

but they might consider rubbing her tits as masturbation

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

This is what I warned about.

The silent parties would be a few programs.
Umm TeenRevenue comes to mind.

I warned them several months ago when it was on a drawing board.
I warned again in a thread that recently came up.

I love them guys but thats alot of money to have waisted on content with a life span of less than a year.

And no Smokey ya not the one that called me an idiot LOL.

I've never heard of a woman having an orgasm from rubbing her tits. Is it masturbation if there's no chance of an orgasm?

Uh oh .. hmm i wonder how i reverse a ddos























LOL just kidding.. , but i did think you meant i said something about it , and i didnt remember or something, if search was working i might have even looked to find it

WHAT ?? they were all faking it

Don't be silly,how many here can afford a lawyer?

It's not the actual picture that always requires 2257, it can be the other pictures in the set that decide this.

But all this will be decided in a court of law and you will be paying a lawyer $2,000 a day to keep you out of jail or from paying a fine that will bankrupt you. Because you were foolish enough to ask a legal question on a porn webmasters board.

Get the 2257 documents to save the worry and possible problem that could happen if you do not have the documents.

Prove to me the girl in the pictureis over 18 on the day of the shoot, consented to her image being sold on the Internet nad that you have the right to publish the pictures. That's what 2257 means to you, proof that you are legal, not the content.

I think we need a standardized test to determine if people are qualified to work in the adult industry. Of course that would probably eliminate 90% of the members of GFY.

Masturbation involves stimulating the genetalia for sexual gratification. The genitals for both males and females are located in that area of the pelvic region where the sexual organs reside. Since you may not understand the scientific names, they are commonly referred to in the adult industry as the cock (male) and pussy (female).

Human bodies have many other erogenous zones, but only one genital area, and the tits ain't it.

Sheesh...

ADG Webmaster

I still want to hear if 2257 is going to cover bukkake lol

Hmm.....so a woman breastfeeding in public is actually being masturbated by an infant in public? or...hmm maybe this would be a lewd act with a child?... PLUS incest??

I don't think you are reading the entire thing correctly. That questioning ONLY applies to sexually explicit material, not to ALL pictures on the net. So, first it must be decided if pictures fall within the defintion of sexually explicit material. Lawyers' interpretations are as good as anyone's. Paying a retainer is just another stupid idea.

There must be a *safe* area where 2257 docs are not needed. If a picture is borderline then, better get all required docs or replace the photos, BUT some pictures may not come even close. Like faces. Or faces screaming orgasms. Or pictures of nude women by themselves, NOT masturbating and not inserting anything nor spreading their pussies.

A necessary condition, but not sufficient is that a person must be ALONE. In addition, the model should not show intention of masturbation and should not show genitals. Even a picture of a woman with her panties on, not showing genitals but with her hands touching her pussy could be considered sexually explicit. The picture above seems to comply with the 3 requirements:

1) single model
2) no sexual conduct
3) no showing of genitals

Since this picture appears to be exempt of the necessary conditions that would regulate it as a 2257 photo, why would anyone require proof of age??

Would a thumbnail of a nude model, by herself, NOT showing genitals but whose facial expression is one of having an orgasm or feeling pleasure would be considered sexually explicit?

Getting the docs may not be a solution that applies to everyone. Some of us are just affiliates with no manpower to set up databases and cross reference data. A middle ground could just be to replace current photos for *safe* ones without having to go nuclear.