NEW GFY RULE - no nude pics

**kane** · 07-12-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear

unless 2257 docs are posted with them ...

i wonder if gfy will be adding this rule soon and if they will be complying by removing pics with no 2257 link on the same page , and if gfy will have 2257 links or docs for its banners/logo's etc.. ?

according to the new rules a link to the 2257 statement isn't enough. The person posting the pic with have to have their entire 2257 statement in the post as well.

**SmokeyTheBear** · 07-12-2007, 04:45 PM

no more public cameltoe pics

D · 07-12-2007, 04:49 PM

And no pics of Sleazy with his shirt off without his docs.

(6) Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to
elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

**Brujah** · 07-12-2007, 04:50 PM

**RawAlex** · 07-12-2007, 04:50 PM

They don't even have to be nude. Just Coy sexuality is enough, even full dressed. Good luck.

**KimJI** · 07-12-2007, 04:52 PM

Use www.WEBAIR.com and ask to be placed on the European serverpark

**CuriousToyBoy** · 07-12-2007, 04:54 PM

I give my permission blah blah blah

;-)

**SmokeyTheBear** · 07-12-2007, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by kane

according to the new rules a link to the 2257 statement isn't enough. The person posting the pic with have to have their entire 2257 statement in the post as well.

i dont think so .. heres from the new regs.

-------------

The
proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing
the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every
page of a Web site (controlled by the producer ( and secondary producer)) on which visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.
--------

- i added the secondary producer for clarification because it states it just below that secondary producer is same thing

**BoyAlley** · 07-12-2007, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by KimJI

Use www.WEBAIR.com and ask to be placed on the European serverpark

And you think that's going to accomplish what exactly?

**SmokeyTheBear** · 07-12-2007, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Brujah

aha we have found a solution to the new regs..

**SBJ** · 07-12-2007, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Brujah

DAMN!

That made me laugh so hard! Maybe that will be my first tat

**mattz** · 07-12-2007, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Silent Bob Jedi

DAMN!

That made me laugh so hard! Maybe that will be my first tat

that's a GFY users tat, I think it was Wizzo's? Can't really remember

**KimJI** · 07-12-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by BoyAlley

And you think that's going to accomplish what exactly?

I'm talking about non US webmasters. Under your current regime, I would never be a adult webmaster located or running my company in the US

**modF** · 07-12-2007, 05:20 PM

Not to sound gay, but CTB is that really bart simpson on your ass?

**mortenb** · 07-12-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by KimJI

I'm talking about non US webmasters. Under your current regime, I would never be a adult webmaster located or running my company in the US

Sometimes it is just nice to be living in a country like Denmark

No one (including the government) gives a fuck about pornographers as long as we pay our taxes and don't deal with CP.

i love this text:

In 1967 Denmark became the first country in the world to legalize porn. They lifted the ban at a time when many criminologists thought that porn had detrimental effects on people and could lead to an increased desire to commit sexual crimes. What happened when the government lifted the ban was that pornography increased in popularity immediately, but sexual crimes did not. Today, while pornography continues to have a presence in Danish society, and is quite easily accessible to anyone over the age of 15, the attitude towards pornography is very laissez faire. It's free and un-coded on local television, you can rent almost any type of porn except child porn; some people watch it, some people don't; and no one seems to care. At least there are no big protests in the street, no loud voices calling for porn to be restricted, no voiced fears that Danish society is morally crumbing in the presence of all this porn. The government has pretty much stayed out of it and seems content to leave it up to the individual to decide how they wish to incorporate porn into their lives. I suspect it's because after being exposed to pornography for over thirty years, many Danes have watched it, watched it again, and again, and find that after a while, it becomes rather dull. One thing is for certain, porn is definitely not as taboo to watch in Denmark as it is in North America, and that seems to have contributed towards their more disinterested attitude towards pornography.

Matthew Hanson

**KimJI** · 07-12-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by mortenb

Sometimes it is just nice to be living in a country like Denmark

No one (including the government) gives a fuck about pornographers as long as we pay our taxes and don't deal with CP.

i love this text:

Yep, right until you start calculating your income tax

**mortenb** · 07-12-2007, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by KimJI

Yep, right until you start calculating your income tax

There is that, but a good accountant with experience in write-offs can make the numbers look much better

**Klen** · 07-12-2007, 05:27 PM

What?2257 for every picture?Crazy.

**Loki** · 07-12-2007, 05:29 PM

is this coy? I know it will turn SOMEONE on lol

but do I need 2257 for her????

-Loki-

**SmokeyTheBear** · 07-12-2007, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by KlenTelaris

What?2257 for every picture?Crazy.

what happens when the feds come to inspect gfy's 2257 records and they have none ?

**Steve Awesome** · 07-12-2007, 08:20 PM

That's why I've always had a 2257 link in my sig.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 07-12-2007, 08:32 PM

2257 is probably unconstitutional.

**Iron Fist** · 07-12-2007, 08:41 PM

Proposed 2257 regs people.... proposed

**shekinah** · 07-12-2007, 08:45 PM

That won't happen I think!

**pornask** · 07-12-2007, 08:46 PM

Let Americans worry about this shit... in the meantime, the rest of the world can have a party :D

**Bell** · 07-12-2007, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by vdc-Loki

is this coy? I know it will turn SOMEONE on lol

but do I need 2257 for her????

-Loki-

giggle...
you made me spit ice tea on my monitor just now...
LOL

~Bell (Patricia)

**Holly** · 07-12-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by KimJI

I'm talking about non US webmasters. Under your current regime, I would never be a adult webmaster located or running my company in the US

Amen, brother. Most of those Americans are idiots, though. That's why they never make any money over there.

**calibra** · 07-12-2007, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Brujah

**[ Nate ]** · 07-12-2007, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Brujah

**Nathan** · 07-12-2007, 10:55 PM

GFY only dispalys the image, it does not select or control that it gets put here... Thus it falls under 2257 (h) (B) (v) and is NOT a PRODUCER!

**zeruel** · 07-12-2007, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by vdc-Loki

is this coy? I know it will turn SOMEONE on lol

but do I need 2257 for her????

-Loki-

WTF...

**CuriousToyBoy** · 07-12-2007, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by modF

Not to sound gay, but CTB is that really bart simpson on your ass?

Yep.

Also have Bam Bam on left side since then also - provides some balance.

**SleazyDream** · 07-12-2007, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by D

And no pics of Sleazy with his shirt off without his docs.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo!

**SmokeyTheBear** · 07-13-2007, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Nathan

GFY only dispalys the image, it does not select or control that it gets put here... Thus it falls under 2257 (h) (B) (v) and is NOT a PRODUCER!

thats way too easy. so every tgp can simple add a fake submit form and claim its all user input that they dont select ? i doubt they would have made it that easy.

even with that it would mean playboy reps can't post images without 2257 because they do control and select it.. i doubt theres an exemption for employees posting explicit images , thats how sites are made , one employee posts content.. he doesnt produce it .. .

i'm sure they thought about this..

otherwise i would just post all my images on my friends site and he posts all his images on my site and we both are exempt ?

also still doesnt address the banners and logo's

**en21** · 07-13-2007, 12:57 AM

luckly I never have to do anything with porn :-)

**jdc** · 07-13-2007, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by vdc-Loki

is this coy? I know it will turn SOMEONE on lol

but do I need 2257 for her????

-Loki-

OMG! Please no Bestiality allowed...

**Goodings Media** · 07-13-2007, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by pornask

Let Americans worry about this shit... in the meantime, the rest of the world can have a party :D

here here

**Secksy** · 07-13-2007, 04:04 AM

What about websites such as MySpace? Are you telling me that if a seductive pose (which we all know their are millions of) is posted on MySpace, then they are going to have to have 2257 documentation and linkage for the feds because one person's opinion of sexually coy is different than another's? This is ludicrous.

**KILL_FRENZY** · 07-13-2007, 04:07 AM

I don't think that will happen soon

**BusterBunny** · 07-13-2007, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by CuriousToyBoy

I give my permission blah blah blah

;-)

**Ben_MN** · 07-13-2007, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by CuriousToyBoy

I give my permission blah blah blah

;-)

Is it just me or for a big guy, doesn't CTB have a tiny ass?

Right, im off - feeling all gay now..

NEW GFY RULE - no nude pics

NEW GFY RULE - no nude pics

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment