How will 2257 Affect public Domain Content? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

TaDoW

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 3875
Share

Post
#1

How will 2257 Affect public Domain Content?

06-07-2005, 05:00 PM

Up until this point, it has been perfectly legal to shoot and publish photos and movies of nude women if they are nude in public (i.e.: they have no expectation of privacy). While I'm not exactly sure how it affects the legality if .. say.. a 16 year old girl is flashing her titties at mardi gras, But let's assume for a second that you're shooting footage of girls flashing inside a BAR, where people have to be 21+ to get in ... still public domain, reasonable care exercised to assure only women of legal age are being filmed/shot ...

How will the new 2257 affect our ability to use/view/distribute this content? I suppose this could be yet another way to take it to court as a 1st amendment violation ...

Discuss.

-TaDoW

I've Upped My Standards, Up Yours!
Tags: None
Damian_Maxcash

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 12745
Share

Post
#2

06-07-2005, 05:02 PM

Id guess that a very grey area just got a few shades darker.....
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#3

06-07-2005, 05:02 PM

technicality, but you are miss using the words public domain, it still would default copyright to the photographer. I know aside from the point.

As for your post, meer nudity is not covered by 2257 in my opinion which is debated.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
TaDoW

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 3875
Share

Post
#4

06-07-2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

As for your post, meer nudity is not covered by 2257 in my opinion which is debated.

I think that's even more of a problem ... "nudity" isn't defined anywhere in this pile of crap :-(

-TaDoW

I've Upped My Standards, Up Yours!
Comment
fusionx

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 4618
Share

Post
#5

06-07-2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by damian2001

Id guess that a very grey area just got a few shades darker.....

Pics of titty flashing, say > 90% of the Girls Gone Wild kind of stuff, are not covered under 2257..

(2) ''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#6

06-07-2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by TaDoW

I think that's even more of a problem ... "nudity" isn't defined anywhere in this pile of crap :-(

Well some people say (e) in 2256 is exempt, and others are saying they left out 2256 and reffernce to (e) in the new 2257.
If the revised 2257 are just revisons and admendments to the current 2257 and the bulk of the original text remains with the clarifications/admendments added in then the refference to 2256 (e) should remain.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
studio

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 1095
Share

Post
#7

06-07-2005, 05:16 PM

By, the letter of the law... Even If the girl flashing in public was 16 if it's not sexually explicit by definition it would be legal... I make this statement based on the fact that publications such National Geo. and publications for like the Nudests, or the new parents that take some snap shots of their bady girl getting a bath could all go to jail.. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#8

06-07-2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

Well some people say (e) in 2256 is exempt, and others are saying they left out 2256 and reffernce to (e) in the new 2257.
If the revised 2257 are just revisons and admendments to the current 2257 and the bulk of the original text remains with the clarifications/admendments added in then the refference to 2256 (e) should remain.

problem is there is no e in the current 2256,

2nd paragraph of 2256 now only has a & b, under "a" there are roman numerals I thru V and these are the old a thru e.
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#9

06-07-2005, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by BV

problem is there is no e in the current 2256,

2nd paragraph of 2256 now only has a & b, under "a" there are roman numerals I thru V and these are the old a thru e.

You know I have not checked to see if 2256 was revised at all, where do you see a revised 2256? Link please.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#10

06-07-2005, 05:28 PM

this (taken from 2257) might come into play also:

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;
Comment
fusionx

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 4618
Share

Post
#11

06-07-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

You know I have not checked to see if 2256 was revised at all, where do you see a revised 2256? Link please.

I can't find any reference to a revised 2256 (after January 7, 2003). I'd love to see a published 2256 with "2nd paragraph of 2256 now only has a & b, under "a" there are roman numerals I thru V and these are the old a thru e."

Not saying BV is wrong - just want to see it.
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#12

06-07-2005, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by fusionx

I can't find any reference to a revised 2256 (after January 7, 2003). I'd love to see a published 2256 with "2nd paragraph of 2256 now only has a & b, under "a" there are roman numerals I thru V and these are the old a thru e."

Not saying BV is wrong - just want to see it.

Neither can I.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
fusionx

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 4618
Share

Post
#13

06-07-2005, 05:33 PM

Found it:

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/18%20USC%202256_text.html

Not verified..
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#14

06-07-2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

You know I have not checked to see if 2256 was revised at all, where do you see a revised 2256? Link please.

my lawyer has one and the only place i can find it on line is here: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/18%20USC%202256_text.html

for some reason all the other places on line show the old one: like here: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20

Section 2256, which includes the definitions for Chapter 110, dealing with the sexual exploitation of children, was amended by Congress, and the definition of sexually explicit conduct is no longer broken down into subparts A -E. The definition was broken down to provide different meanings when the image is computer generated (part B) as opposed to an image of a live person (part A). This breakdown was in response to a U.S. Supreme Court case which struck the computer image portion of the statute as unconstitutionally overbroad. The remainder of the statute remians in force and enforceable.
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#15

06-07-2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by BV

my lawyer has one and the only place i can find it on line is here: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/18%20USC%202256_text.html

for some reason all the other places on line show the old one: like here: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...6----000-.html

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#16

06-07-2005, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...6----000-.html

that's the old one, i wish it wasn't, but it is
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#17

06-07-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by BV

that's the old one, i wish it wasn't, but it is

If it was actually changed we should be able to see it on a .gov site no? and not some lawyers site only?

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
fusionx

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 4618
Share

Post
#18

06-07-2005, 05:41 PM

Now, where is the revised 2257 that refers to this new definition?

(B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated--

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, "sexually explicit conduct" means--
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral- genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#19

06-07-2005, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by fusionx

Now, where is the revised 2257 that refers to this new definition?

(;

no where!

It seems that Congress never changed section 2257 to conform with the changes it made to 2256. The new regulation, 28 CFR Section 75.1 "definitions" does not deal with any definition sexually explicit material. We are left to rely on Sections 2256 and 2257.
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#20

06-07-2005, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

If it was actually changed we should be able to see it on a .gov site no? and not some lawyers site only?

you would think so,

I do know that our lawyer had a copy of the new one also, so I can only asume at this point that there is a new one
Comment
fusionx

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 4618
Share

Post
#21

06-07-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by BV

you would think so,

I do know that our lawyer had a copy of the new one also, so I can only asume at this point that there is a new one

Can you see if he has a reference to any new (not published at the GPO) 2257 docs? I'm really trying to keep up with all of this. I'll check with our lawyer as well.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...