GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - So I Talked To Several Attorneys About TGPs and 2257/4472 Here's What I Was Told

BoyAlley · 04-09-2007, 03:37 PM

Uhm, RawAlex, no offense but your logic falls apart on many different levels, and the "prove it" dialog you created doesn't even come close to resembling the actual inspection process nor the burdens required by the law.

The following is my personal reasoning and logic, (certainly not legal advice):

This isn't a matter of "splitting hairs", it's a matter of defining what is, and what is not, covered by 2257 / 4472, which is pretty clearly spelled out.

I think the only "iffy" is the lascivious display issue as it relates to clothed individuals, but I think common sense comes into play there (although this is certainly an issue that needs addressed by the courts).

Under your logic, even fully clothed banner ads you get from sponsors would be covered material requiring docs, because the photoshoot the sponsor took and image from to make the banner may have also contained explicit imagery.

What happens if there were 2 photoshoots the same day, one explicit one not? How do you define when the non-explicit shoot ended and the explicit one began?

Hell, using your logic, NO image of any person that has ever done porn could ever be published by anyone anywhere unless everyone kept 2257 docs because no one would ever know if it came from an explicit production or not.

There is explicit and lascivious, and there is clothed and non-explicit. One is covered by 2257/4472, one is not.

It is very possible therefore, for a movie to be explicit, a person takes non-explicit clips from it: he needs docs as he altered an explicit publication. Then a second person takes screencaps from the already sanitized movie he would NOT need docs as the material he was originally presented with to work from wasn't explicit.

If YOU personally create a work derived from explicit material, you need docs (create meaning not only filming but also what we called the old "secondary" stuff ie make banners, edit movie, crop thumbs, etc).

If YOU personally get material that is not explicit, and make derivative works from it, you don't need docs.

To me, that's the logical way of viewing 2257/4472, and it's my personal belief that is the intent of the laws and regulations.

04-09-2007, 03:37 PM
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	Uhm, RawAlex, no offense but your logic falls apart on many different levels, and the "prove it" dialog you created doesn't even come close to resembling the actual inspection process nor the burdens required by the law. The following is my personal reasoning and logic, (certainly not legal advice): This isn't a matter of "splitting hairs", it's a matter of defining what is, and what is not, covered by 2257 / 4472, which is pretty clearly spelled out. I think the only "iffy" is the lascivious display issue as it relates to clothed individuals, but I think common sense comes into play there (although this is certainly an issue that needs addressed by the courts). Under your logic, even fully clothed banner ads you get from sponsors would be covered material requiring docs, because the photoshoot the sponsor took and image from to make the banner may have also contained explicit imagery. What happens if there were 2 photoshoots the same day, one explicit one not? How do you define when the non-explicit shoot ended and the explicit one began? Hell, using your logic, NO image of any person that has ever done porn could ever be published by anyone anywhere unless everyone kept 2257 docs because no one would ever know if it came from an explicit production or not. There is explicit and lascivious, and there is clothed and non-explicit. One is covered by 2257/4472, one is not. It is very possible therefore, for a movie to be explicit, a person takes non-explicit clips from it: he needs docs as he altered an explicit publication. Then a second person takes screencaps from the already sanitized movie he would NOT need docs as the material he was originally presented with to work from wasn't explicit. If YOU personally create a work derived from explicit material, you need docs (create meaning not only filming but also what we called the old "secondary" stuff ie make banners, edit movie, crop thumbs, etc). If YOU personally get material that is not explicit, and make derivative works from it, you don't need docs. To me, that's the logical way of viewing 2257/4472, and it's my personal belief that is the intent of the laws and regulations. Last edited by BoyAlley; 04-09-2007 at 03:38 PM..