2257 and user submitted photos

I'd be really interested to know the answer as well, and also, what are my 2257 requirements for posting other site's free hosted galleries on my site, do I need 2257's for all that content?

Before this discussion gets off topic, you're better off starting a new thread as this is a different issue from user submitted photos.

Joe,

That issue is up in the air at this time.

Many years ago there was a case concerning home produced photos being submitted to a swingers magazine for ads or free publication. At that time the Federal court, and the Federal Court of Appeals, decided that the magazine was not the primary producer and was not required to have IDs on file.

BUT, the new 2257 regulations DO require it.

At this time there is suit to try and block the new regulations (and in fact the entire 2257 law). That suit is in the very early stages and likely will not be through the system for 18 months or more, and could then be appealed even further.

Plus, some in congress have even gone so far as to propose MORE new regulations, or direct amendments to the 2257 law, that could take affect soon that would make the matters even more confusing and spark yet another suit.

There is a court order in place at this time that prevents 2257 inspections for Free Speech Coalition members as of June 25th, but that will expire soon. The Judge in Denver Federal court has been considering a motion to place the entire 2257 law on hold until there is a trial in the suit. He stated on 08/02/05 that he would try to decide within 30 days, but has not yet done so.

The bottom line is that under the new regulations you need 2257 documents for each photo you use, no matter how that image gets to you.


Jimmy

Jimmy,

I realize this is probably a question for my attorney but I just want to clarify one point and hear your thoughts.

When you say 'the bottom line is that under the new regulations you need 2257 documents for each photo you use' you mean for each 'hardcore' photo you use.

While the definition of hardcore might not yet be clear we can assume that a photo of a person simply stand naked by themselves would not be hardcore and therefore would not be subject to 2257 whether Joe purchased, produced or republished the picture. In other words the origin of the picture is not an issue. It is the content of the picture - ie: h/c vs s/c that is the issue.

The photos can only have one person the photo.

I talked to Allan (who runs Dating Gold, I'm sure you've seen his ads here on GFY) and he said that "nudity is ok, sexually explicit isn't ... hard on, cum shots, touching genitals, legs spread".

llporter,

Under the law on the books today mere nudity doesn't call for 2257. BUT, just last month the government proposed changing that to include simple nudity. The amendedment to the 2257 law was added at the last minute to another bill. The bill passed the House of Representatives the next day and is now in the Senate for committee review.

Quotes from AVN Online...

" H.R. 3726 is an attempt to reverse that victory. The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1), (b) and (f)(4)(A) to delete the word "actual" as a modifier for "sexually explicit conduct," thereby opening the scope of the law to any production that depicts sexual acts in any way, either actual or simulated.

For example, 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1) would now read, in pertinent part, "Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which-- (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of sexually explicit conduct ... shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction."

The new bill similarly would eliminate the "actual" from the portions of the law requiring producers to keep records of performers of "sexually explicit conduct" and would criminalize retailers from selling, for instance, a copy of Blue Lagoon or The Last Picture Show if it lacked the "2257 notice" universally seen on hardcore adult videos.

"If I'm reading this correctly, this expands the scope of 2257 to make it apply to simulations," commented attorney J.D. Obenberger. "Now, there's no constitutional difference in protection between hardcore and softcore depictions, so I don't think that by expanding the scope of it, there's a strong constitutional argument that's raised by this. I think they have the power to do this, and what they're doing is they're just making it a nastier, uglier world and saying, if it's simulated stuff, you still have to comply with 2257."

"The change of 'actual sexually explicit conduct' to just 'sexually explicit conduct,' as well as the addition of nudity, vastly expands the scope of the materials covered by 2257," agreed attorney/AVN columnist Clyde DeWitt, "especially given all of the federal child pornography cases from around the country that have held that 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person' can include a fully clothed pubic area."



So, what the rules are today and what they may be in 2006 could be vastly different. Under a 1990 Federal case called "KNOX" 2257 records could be required for Non-Nude websites.

Of course, if this becomes lawsuits will be filed to try and stop it. Unfortunately none of us can count on the outcome of those suits to conduct our business.

Jimmy

wtf??
could't you just move it to some hosting company in europe?

lol i would just move if i made that loot