im not removing shit 
-
-
Originally posted by Jeppe
Legal Dictionary
las·civ·i·ous (lhahaha601;-`si-vhahaha275;-hahaha601;s)
adj.
Reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene (lewd and lascivious behavior).
Personally I just find that erotic and do not see emphasis on the pubic region. Though when your sitting in that church like structure reffered to as a court, in some hot humid southern state. They will bring out the good old dictionary on ones ass and clearly point out that not only is homosexuallity indecent but it is also obscene thus clearly making it lascivious.Comment
-
I have to agree. Not that I like it, but it does ring true.Originally posted by After Shock MediaNeed Hosting? Reality Check Network services me purrrfectly!
Comment
-
Jeppe - Re: censored members area screencaps--that's not allowed either. Even if you censor a hardcore image and display it on your site, you still need the 2257 docs. I also run a review site and we're in the process of pulling all members area screencaps (even though they WERE censored). Luckily, our sample pics are all non-explicit already, however, we're in the process of going through all of those as well and getting rid of anything remotely explicit. We've also always linked to the 2257 statement for each site we review, just for the hell of it. We might go the no-nude route; we haven't decided yet. As of now, the most explicit pics that we display are kissing and topless, bu we are definitely going to pull all kissing pics. It's a ridiculous world we live in, that's for sure.Last edited by CC; 06-15-2005, 11:22 AM.Comment
-
Wow, this is seriously butchering our business. Thanks for your replies guys, I hadn't even considered screenshots.. Oh my.
Is it necessary to disclude explicit content IF you DO have the models docs? As I contact sponsors, if I do get the necessary documents, I am then free to post the pictures the sponsor has given me?
If for some reason this sponsor comes under legal scrutiny and they find a small problem in how they documented, or perhaps a fake ID or something, and I have a picture of that girl on my site, am I then responsible for that sponsors mistake?Comment
-
Socks -- On the bright side, taking away screenshots doesn't appear to have hurt our conversions....yet, at least, we just started the removal a week ago. I think that surfers trust review sites implicitly (for better or for worse) and if a site scores well, then they're going to join regardless of if they see screenshots or not. I also truly do not believe that just using no-nude pics will impact conversions. I can't help you with the more detailed questions though...I still have a slightly tenuous grasp on 2257 myself.Originally posted by SocksComment
-
If you have the docs you can use the pictures.Originally posted by Socks
If a sponsor made a mistake and or had a fake ID that was not reasonably able to spot as a fake then no harm no foul, everyone destroys that content and moves on (at least thats what has happened before). Problem is they could start with you in regards to legal scrutiny well before they even considered checking out the sponsor.Comment
-
Ok next question. As a Canadian, if I choose to ignore the ruling for the time being and "test the water" to see what happens in the days following the deadline, am I putting my US sponsors that I promote at risk?Comment
-
Yes/No (Wish I could be clear)Originally posted by Socks
Some sponsors have clearly given out their new TOS in regards to 2257. Some have said explicit content is a no go and you will get termed if you use it. Others have said it is fine and they will get you ids, and so on.
Technically you would only be putting yourself at risk. Though hidden within the new regs is the word "conspiracy". This conjures up many issues that I will not go into. It does however mean it could effect a sponsor.
You do still have the possibility of an injunction (you did donate to the FSC didnt you?)
You do happen to be Canadian so you would be a very low priority.
You do also have the capability of switching screen caps without much concern over dropping ratios.
You could find a loophole in the law by staying as a review site and trying to pull a google if you can get a script made up to take new snapshots all the time.Comment
-
Hrm there's an interesting idea too.. Also it would be a good way to replace all our explicit screenshots anyways, most tours will be compliant I'm imagining.
Another question.
On the 23rd, let's say I remove ALL sample images from my site.
Let's also say I start a "members only" area for people who sign up, in a password protected area, with the old images? Do I still need the docs? I'm guessing yes.. sigh.Comment
-
Yeah I guess that is how you have to consider it. Thanks for the advice.Originally posted by After Shock MediaComment
-
Actually it is my experience that many sites have explicit material on the tour as well. It may only be a small thumb from a recent update, but it is still there - such as in this review. On some sites it is even part of the navigation bar such as here. So unfortunately this means serious overtime for me finding non-explicit tours the next weekOriginally posted by Socks
I think so too.Originally posted by SocksComment
-
Sounds like that is a reasonable solution. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry especially in this case.Originally posted by CC
I am a bit worried to completely remove all our screenshots though - I think it gives a very good impression of the site, but if our readers don't mind, then I guess it doesn't matter - will have to go through them and see how many contain explicit content before deciding on that.
It's truly fucked up - don't even get me started on that I spent the first week being pissed about it, but then started finding out how we could comply. Even though we are not in the US, I still want to be able to travel anywhere I want and be sure I can go home as well 
Last edited by Jeppe; 06-16-2005, 02:35 AM.Comment
-
you're kidding right?Originally posted by Soul_Rebelim not removing shitComment
-
screenshots of paid sites are still content of that web site
it should be treated as a bannerComment
Comment