Here is a VERY INTERESTING QUESTIOn reguarding 2257 and International passports..

[amacontent]

If I am reading correct and that International passports are no longer accepted unless the producer and talent records keeping is outside the USA...Is it safe to say that mainstream movie producers who produce blockbuster movies can no longer show nudity with an international female unless they reside in the USA.?? This I cannot believe will be let happen.

[simple simon]

whats 2257?

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by simple simon

whats 2257?

lol 8chars

[Probono]

Last time I looked 2257 did not cover nudity.

Sec 75.1 (c)(2)
"matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct"

Nudity alone does not qualify as sexually explicit conduct.

[Probono]

Except I think in Texas

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by Probono

Last time I looked 2257 did not cover nudity.

Sec 75.1 (c)(2)
"matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct"

Nudity alone does not qualify as sexually explicit conduct.

Dont you need proof of age for over 18 if you are nude

[Probono]

Originally Posted by amacontent

Dont you need proof of age for over 18 if you are nude

Do not rest on my legal advice; ask you own lawyer. I would require ID and a release but I do not think it is covered by 18 USC 2257. Odd considering the intent of the law but nudity would cover a much broader spectrum as you have suggested. I think the stated intent is keeping underage people out of porn.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by amacontent

Dont you need proof of age for over 18 if you are nude

It is not necessarily illegal to take or show artistic or non-sexual nude pictures of children. If it was, then every person who had a naked picture of their baby would be arrested, as would many famous photographers.

The 2257 law only covers sexually explicit content - not nudity.

Regardless of what is legal in theory, you should obviously not be involved with distributing nude pictures of anyone under 18 if you are a U.S. citizen. Unless you enjoy prison.

[Mutt]

open legged nudity where the model's genitalia aka the vagina, the beaver or the 'beave', the twat, the hairpie, the snatch, etc is on display is by the definition set out in 2257 - explicit and lascivious.


softcore nudity where the legs aren't spread open is not 'explicit'. Simulated explicit sex is also not subject to 2257 law. This gets 99% of mainstream movies off the hook.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by amacontent

If I am reading correct and that International passports are no longer accepted unless the producer and talent records keeping is outside the USA...Is it safe to say that mainstream movie producers who produce blockbuster movies can no longer show nudity with an international female unless they reside in the USA.?? This I cannot believe will be let happen.

The "picture ident card" is only needed when the model does not have a proper "identification document".


Identification Document is defined in 18 U.S.C 1028(d)
"The term 'identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals."

So a "picture identification card" comes into play when the record holder does not have records that fall within the meaning of "identification document".

[Paraskass]

Originally Posted by Mutt

open legged nudity where the model's genitalia aka the vagina, the beaver or the 'beave', the twat, the hairpie, the snatch, etc is on display is by the definition set out in 2257 - explicit and lascivious.


softcore nudity where the legs aren't spread open is not 'explicit'. Simulated explicit sex is also not subject to 2257 law. This gets 99% of mainstream movies off the hook.

interesting. So pics of titties are ok.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Paraskass

interesting. So pics of titties are ok.

yeah naked titties are fine as long as the model isn't doing too much with them - licking her titties would be 'explicit', not sure if she pulling on her nipples if that would be 'explicit' but i would guess they'd say it was.

[DWB]

A passport is goverment issued ID... they will be fine. The wording I think is just kind of confusing on that.

[latinasojourn]

Originally Posted by Mutt

open legged nudity where the model's genitalia aka the vagina, the beaver or the 'beave', the twat, the hairpie, the snatch, etc is on display is by the definition set out in 2257 - explicit and lascivious.

can anyone please show the text on this? can't find it.

[TheDoc]

2256
(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; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

[latinasojourn]

ok, i still don't see it.

a woman exercises nude. yoga maybe. shooter photographs it.

she opens her legs.

does not smile.

2257 required?

she smiles (coyly)

2257 required?

[Vegas Babe]

I am NOT a lawyer, but someone pointed this out on another thread:
it starts with this:

For the purposes of this chapter, the term?
(1) ?minor? means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(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; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

and you dig deeper, and it clarifies with what you said:

(h) As used in this section?
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

So, going by this meaning, E is not sexually explicit conduct, so lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area wouldn't fall under 2257. I'm still hesitant myself to show some wide open spread shots though without documenting it properly.

What is everyone else's feeling on this?

[TheDoc]

To me, it reads that boobs would be ok, but if she had white panties on and was holding herself, which would be in a lude way, then you would need the 2257.

For us, we are going full non-nude for all promo content. After the regulations have been inforced and if someone else comes up clean with boob shots, then I might add it back into the mix. No reason to push it if you don't have to.

[latinasojourn]

[QUOTE=TheDoc]To me, it reads that boobs would be ok, but if she had white panties on and was holding herself, which would be in a lude way, then you would need the 2257.
QUOTE]


ok, what if she was wearing black panties?

this is very loosey-goosey stuff this subject idea of "lascivious", and it seems like it puts us right back to a community standards sort of decision, i.e. "i know it when it see it".

and the problem with that is that the internet is an international community standard.

and then we get into free speech issues. this is going to be a huge can of worms IMO.

guaranteed this issue will be in the courts.

[After Shock Media]

As pointed out before using the deffinitions of 2256, that (E) does not fall into the category of what needs to have 2257 docs on. Everyone is of the consensus though that you should have 2257 on anything that falls under (E) though.

So technically a girl absolutely nude spreading her legs and letting you see up her cooter would not need documentation as long as she is not touching her pubic region or someone elses. Though again I would advise that you do have documentation.

[Terry]

I have read so many different 2257 threads that I am confused as hell now.. AHHHHHH

[latinasojourn]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

As pointed out before using the deffinitions of 2256, that (E) does not fall into the category of what needs to have 2257 docs on. Everyone is of the consensus though that you should have 2257 on anything that falls under (E) though.

So technically a girl absolutely nude spreading her legs and letting you see up her cooter would not need documentation as long as she is not touching her pubic region or someone elses. Though again I would advise that you do have documentation.

yes, THIS is how i read it.

now, what if she has a smile, and she is pretty?

[latinasojourn]

to be more precise, what if she gave a viewer tumescence?

[TheDoc]

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Lasvicious:
1) Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2) Exciting sexual desires; salacious.

Salacious:
Appealing to or stimulating sexual desire; lascivious.
Lustful; bawdy.

Now back to: (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
If you can see her hahahaha, pubic hair, or anything that shows sexual desire/lust, (even clothed) with releation to the pubic area, then you will need 2257.

The best example I can see, is old school playboy style shoots, but even less pub area that they show.

To me, they mean tits too, until the DOJ proves otherwise.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Lasvicious:
1) Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2) Exciting sexual desires; salacious.

Salacious:
Appealing to or stimulating sexual desire; lascivious.
Lustful; bawdy.

Now back to: (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
If you can see her hahahaha, pubic hair, or anything that shows sexual desire/lust, (even clothed) with releation to the pubic area, then you will need 2257.

The best example I can see, is old school playboy style shoots, but even less pub area that they show.

To me, they mean tits too, until the DOJ proves otherwise.

Check for this line though.
the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

[TheDoc]

I will double check when I get back, but If I remember correctly part of it is replaced with the new section, modification to the current text in the law. Hard to keep it all in my head, I know that

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Check for this line though.
the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

Exactly... subparagraph (E) is specifically not included in the 2257 regulations... like a lot of people, I had missed that exclusion until it was pointed out on another board.

[EZRhino]

Originally Posted by Probono

Do not rest on my legal advice; ask you own lawyer. I would require ID and a release but I do not think it is covered by 18 USC 2257. Odd considering the intent of the law but nudity would cover a much broader spectrum as you have suggested. I think the stated intent is keeping underage people out of porn.

Good advise

[s9ann0]

I guess it could be the end of hollywood as well as the adult industry!

[TheDoc]

This should clear some stuff up..
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html

More about what we talked about above. It does seem that as long as the people aren't doing the nasty, things will be fine. BUT, xxxlaw.net recommends you still get the record, just incase.

from xxxlaw.net" It imposes no obligations on producers of material that does not include actual, sexually explicit conduct. Thus, there is no obligation under this provision regarding graphic representations of mere erotic nudity or of simulated sex. But it does cover the waterfront of actual, sexual conduct: It includes all varieties of sexual intercourse, vaginal, anal, or oral, straight or gay, and bestiality, masturbation, and sadistic or masochistic abuse. The determination of whether the act applies to images that do not clearly display penetration or the other covered activities is simple: If it was really going on, the Section applies, even if the actual sexual conduct can't be seen in the image, due to obscuring, covering, or any other reason. (There are compelling and eminently practical reasons why that the wise content provider should harvest identity documents and information in every graphic depiction of erotic nudity whether, strictly speaking, required by the Statute, or not, and should maintain them as though covered by the Statute.)"

Hard for me to think the above is correct, based off the purpose of this law. With all the "crack down talk", then you see this, kinda makes you stop and think.. wtf are they doing with this law then? The protection of children is out the door if its ok to have a nude girl laying on the bed.

For myself, the words "actual but NOT simulated conduct" means A-D is fine if the content is simulated, but if the content is lude (E) then A-D applies.

The wording is jacked up..

(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;