the ignorance in this thread on the new (and old) 2257 laws is amazing
if you have a womans face cropped out of a picture, and the original picture was deemed sexually explicit, THAN YOU MUST HAVE DOCS FOR THE THUMB....even if it is just a crop out of the face
Agreed but what about the original SET?
If you use the first softcore pic but the set is hardcore - what then?
I think a whole lot of people need to change the way they are looking at things.
On purpose or by mistake you used the phrase "workaround" most people are stuck in this "workaround" mindset.
IMHO I think we would all be best suited to get in a " Work within" mindset.
We all need to work within the parameters that our lawyers have advised us.
If you are one of what I suspect to be dozens of webmasters. ( tgp, mgp, freesites ect..) that do not have your own legal counsel. I would do my best to error on the side of caution, and stop trying to talk yourself into something that is fringe. And for gods sake be very careful listening to the " GFY crack legal posting team" who themselves have not consulted a lawyer and have done their best to review the new regulations and figure it out. I am very worried for some of you trying to justify things you know will put you at a higher risk. But I guess someone has got to get busted first. Better to get a clarification of the laws on your dime not mine i suppose.
ooohhh.. I sure do have legal advise, and they told me to not waste my time with it. We are based in denmark, we host in danmark, and most of our stuff is in danish - so it does not really apply to us, unless our partners requier it. That is why I have it writing from all our major partners, if it apply to our joint venture, or not...
And if you go back to the beginnig of all thise 2257 post, I was one of theose that said "get proff help" and i still do...
but I do take et VERY seriously, even if it does not look like it.
If you use the first softcore pic but the set is hardcore - what then?
It seems no one can agree on this one.
<Armchair laywers discuss>
the way it was explained to me, it is a picture by picture basis....
if you have 500 pictures, starting with clothed and slowly working from softcore to hardcore, and you only use the softcore pics...then technically it isn't a hardcore set standing from what you published
Jesus Christ am I the only guy that wishes threads had a little drama image on the front page? I just happened into this and can't believe what I'm reading.
Brad
i was totally stunned reading this thread - really BAD turn in here.
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!
no its not compliant.. in my opinion.. and I doubt you would find an attorney willing to state that either for fear possible litigation telling you it is. The attorneys dont know themselves yet. So they arent giving out any catergorical advice. Right now they are speaking in parables so if you get pinched they have an out. Unfortunatley we will need more clarification from the doj or some prosecutions to explain it further.
Mitch Farber
CEO - NETbilling, Inc. Email / Phone: 888-357-8166 / 661-252-2456
Transaction processing & 24/7 call center services with exceptional rates and flexibility, since 1998!
the way it was explained to me, it is a picture by picture basis....
if you have 500 pictures, starting with clothed and slowly working from softcore to hardcore, and you only use the softcore pics...then technically it isn't a hardcore set standing from what you published
I'm not going to go back to find the original wording relating to this specific point, but it is transparently obvious (and one of the first points my lawyer made) that the intent of the new rules is to ensure that minors are not involved in porn productions. Given that, the key must be the whole photo set and in fact, the whole photo session.
Chance your luck if you like, but in practical terms, selecting softcore pics from a hardcore photoset is no different than cropping a softcore area from a hardcore pic.
Depressingly it seems that several sponsors are already forgetting even the most liberal interpretations. A list of FHG's I got from nubiles.net a couple of days ago was typical of several: although they were all what we might think of as softcore, every single gallery included at least one picture in which the model was plainly touching her genitals. And there was a guy on here today promoting some really excellent galleries, but among all his samples, I couldn't find any which would not require me to have 2257 docs, unless I only used text linking.
I guess it's up to sponsors and submitters if they don't mind limiting themselves to text-only and non-US TGP's, etc. But I also suspect that a lot of free-site operators are likely not noticing the drift back and could get into trouble down the road.
Comment