Who is 2257 going to effect? - GoFuckYourself.com

slapass · 05-22-2005, 06:45 PM

Gallery and free site builders might be fucked but they will use free hosting from the sponsor and wham that issue is gone with some extra paperwork. The big ones will be recruited and the little guys will be gone. Just a guess.

TGP's and MPG's use fhg or submitted galleries. Don't crop to other then face and you are fine. Don't host any images is even better.

I just got to thinking that most of us can get around this pretty quicky. Anything you are planning on changing if it passes as is?

European Lee · 05-22-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Who is 2257 going to effect?

Everyone

Regards,

Lee

slapass · 05-22-2005, 06:55 PM

You and thehun are going to do business the same way as before so that is 2 people out of the mess.

Alex · 05-22-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Everyone

Regards,

Lee

What if they are in a non-us contry with servers offshore?

Mr.Fiction · 05-22-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Don't crop to other then face and you are fine.

I have read in the past that this is not the case. If the picture originally had hardcore content, then you have to have 2257 even if the cropped version does not have hardcore.

Maybe that's not required, but some lawyers see it that way.

Alex · 05-22-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

I have read in the past that this is not the case. If the picture originally had hardcore content, then you have to have 2257 even if the cropped version does not have hardcore.

Maybe that's not required, but some lawyers see it that way.

No. Because one they click on the picture they will be on another domain and you dont need 2257 for those that you link to.

Mr.Fiction · 05-22-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

No. Because one they click on the picture they will be on another domain and you dont need 2257 for those that you link to.

But you are still hosting hardcore pictures on your site, even if the hardcore has been cropped out. The sex still happened in that picture.

If someone were to take a bunch of pictures of real child porn, and crop out the hardcore, but post the pictures on their site, would that be legal?

I don't agree with the bullshit new 2257 law, I'm just telling you what I have heard in the past.

pr0 · 05-22-2005, 07:16 PM

So stick to non-nude & artistic nudes? lol

Alex · 05-22-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

But you are still hosting hardcore pictures on your site, even if the hardcore has been cropped out. The sex still happened in that picture.

If someone were to take a bunch of pictures of real child porn, and crop out the hardcore, but post the pictures on their site, would that be legal?

I don't agree with the bullshit new 2257 law, I'm just telling you what I have heard in the past.

If i post a headshot how does anyone know what happend in the full picture or wheater or not that headshot is the real picture. They would have to click through to the gallery and then i let them worry about there 2257. The gallery isnt on my domain or server so i cant get blamed for it.

Thats how i see if. Correct me if im wrong.

Lycanthrope · 05-22-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

If i post a headshot how does anyone know what happend in the full picture or wheater or not that headshot is the real picture. They would have to click through to the gallery and then i let them worry about there 2257. The gallery isnt on my domain or server so i cant get blamed for it.

Thats how i see if. Correct me if im wrong.

You are wrong. It is VERY clearly stated that cropping, blurring, etc. is not cause for exemption.

Spunky · 05-22-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0

So stick to non-nude & artistic nudes? lol

I'm leaning towards something like that

slapass · 05-22-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

You are wrong. It is VERY clearly stated that cropping, blurring, etc. is not cause for exemption.

Did you see that in the proposed regs? I must have missed that. And what about the PG tours. Is that blurring? I realize they were intended for a different reason but sort of the the same issue.

Kingfish · 05-22-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

No. Because one they click on the picture they will be on another domain and you dont need 2257 for those that you link to.

Wrong? read 2257 not the regulations in the CFR [quote]

Quote:

contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct.

A plain reading doesn?t say the actual penetration has to be showing, but just as a whole sexually explicit conduct has to be depicted. So in other words if you take a sexually explicit photo, and blur out the part where the guy is sticking his cock up a girl?s ass it is still a photo that depicts actual sexually explicit conduct. Same goes for cropping a photo to make a thumb. Say you just have a small 88*88 on your Thumb TGP of a girls head, but click on the Thumb and it shows a picture with a guy?s dick in the girl?s cooter. Even though the big picture isn?t your responsibility the DOJ can use that big picture to determine that your thumb is a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

Lycanthrope · 05-22-2005, 07:36 PM

[QUOTE=Kingfish]Wrong? read 2257 not the regulations in the CFR

Quote:

A plain reading doesn?t say the actual penetration has to be showing, but just as a whole sexually explicit conduct has to be depicted. So in other words if you take a sexually explicit photo, and blur out the part where the guy is sticking his cock up a girl?s ass it is still a photo that depicts actual sexually explicit conduct. Same goes for cropping a photo to make a thumb. Say you just have a small 88*88 on your Thumb TGP of a girls head, but click on the Thumb and it shows a picture with a guy?s dick in the girl?s cooter. Even though the big picture isn?t your responsibility the DOJ can use that big picture to determine that your thumb is a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

Yup.

slapass · 05-22-2005, 08:47 PM

But a head shot does not depict sexual conduct. That is a crazy interpretaion. You have no way of knowing what the larger picture contains from the head shot. It is a pic in and of itself.

Anyone know what the law would say if you hotlinked a thumbnail? Who has the pic the serve or the site it is on? example is the many sigs on here. who is repsonsible for those under 2257? This board is less good as we control our sigs but if I intentionally hotlink in a pic do I need the docs?

Kingfish · 05-22-2005, 09:12 PM

Not so crazy where in the statute does it say the actually explicit part has to be showing? As to far as not knowing yourself that makes it a little difficult and practically speaking the DOJ would have to have the original picture to prove their case, but the point being if you are making a thumb and then linking a thumb to a gallery with the original picture it would make it easy for them to figure it out.

As to your second point, I believe the proposed regulations ( I am too lazy to look it up right now) something to the effect of whoever inserts into a website?

So that would mean hot linking wouldn?t save you from the 2257 requirements.

tony286 · 05-22-2005, 09:49 PM

Until the new regs are posted its hard to tell, I think it will be used as the reason to get in the door of the people they want to go after for obscenity. I dont think they are going after some very vanilla mlif site or solo girl site because they will want to win. Little people making plea deals isnt big news.

hy777 · 05-23-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

I have read in the past that this is not the case. If the picture originally had hardcore content, then you have to have 2257 even if the cropped version does not have hardcore.

Maybe that's not required, but some lawyers see it that way.

I think the issue with cropping is the same as with blurring. If two people are engaged in sexually explicit conduct and you crop out the part that indicates this (like cropping their genitals), then, the picture still falls within the defintion of sexually explicit conduct.

BUT, if you present a thumbnail of JUST a face with no other indication of sexually explicit conduct and this thumbnail doesn't link to anything or links to an unrelated photo not hosted by you, then the thumbnail should be exempt and the cropping is good.

Can anyone with legal experience contribute?

05-22-2005, 06:45 PM	#1
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	Who is 2257 going to effect? Gallery and free site builders might be fucked but they will use free hosting from the sponsor and wham that issue is gone with some extra paperwork. The big ones will be recruited and the little guys will be gone. Just a guess. TGP's and MPG's use fhg or submitted galleries. Don't crop to other then face and you are fine. Don't host any images is even better. I just got to thinking that most of us can get around this pretty quicky. Anything you are planning on changing if it passes as is?

05-22-2005, 07:16 PM	#8
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	So stick to non-nude & artistic nudes? lol __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

05-22-2005, 09:49 PM	#17
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Until the new regs are posted its hard to tell, I think it will be used as the reason to get in the door of the people they want to go after for obscenity. I dont think they are going after some very vanilla mlif site or solo girl site because they will want to win. Little people making plea deals isnt big news. Last edited by tony299; 05-22-2005 at 09:50 PM.. Reason: missing word

05-22-2005, 06:55 PM	#3
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	You and thehun are going to do business the same way as before so that is 2 people out of the mess.

05-22-2005, 08:47 PM	#15
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	But a head shot does not depict sexual conduct. That is a crazy interpretaion. You have no way of knowing what the larger picture contains from the head shot. It is a pic in and of itself. Anyone know what the law would say if you hotlinked a thumbnail? Who has the pic the serve or the site it is on? example is the many sigs on here. who is repsonsible for those under 2257? This board is less good as we control our sigs but if I intentionally hotlink in a pic do I need the docs?

05-22-2005, 09:12 PM	#16
Kingfish Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 668	Not so crazy where in the statute does it say the actually explicit part has to be showing? As to far as not knowing yourself that makes it a little difficult and practically speaking the DOJ would have to have the original picture to prove their case, but the point being if you are making a thumb and then linking a thumb to a gallery with the original picture it would make it easy for them to figure it out. As to your second point, I believe the proposed regulations ( I am too lazy to look it up right now) something to the effect of whoever inserts into a website? So that would mean hot linking wouldn?t save you from the 2257 requirements.