Censored images ok for 2257? - GoFuckYourself.com

cambaby · 06-14-2005, 11:55 PM

A friend of mine is an Asian webmaster and says in his country there are rules about censoring images they display on thier website, such as blotting out hardcore areas of an image. I realize none of you are lawyers but what is your take on censored images.

KRL · 06-14-2005, 11:58 PM

good question.

blackmonsters · 06-15-2005, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

A friend of mine is an Asian webmaster and says in his country there are rules about censoring images they display on thier website, such as blotting out hardcore areas of an image. I realize none of you are lawyers but what is your take on censored images.

No go here. 2257 states that if the original image is explicit than the croped or otherwised altered image must still have 2257 docs.

Sorry.

It's either softcore originals or 2257 docs.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

A friend of mine is an Asian webmaster and says in his country there are rules about censoring images they display on thier website, such as blotting out hardcore areas of an image. I realize none of you are lawyers but what is your take on censored images.

No it's not ok. If the girl in the pic is underage does it matter if you blotted it out? No. It's what the ORIGINAL pic was that matters.

emthree · 06-15-2005, 12:03 AM

huh, what? Which Country?

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:07 AM

If you think about you will realize that there is no way to check what the original image was about.

I don't know the law text, but common sense tells me that censoring should be fine.

I'd appreciate if any of the you guys could show me the law text that says different ..

Webby · 06-15-2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

A friend of mine is an Asian webmaster and says in his country there are rules about censoring images they display on thier website, such as blotting out hardcore areas of an image. I realize none of you are lawyers but what is your take on censored images.

Interesting question!!! :-)

Hard to see a judge or jury convicting on no record-keeping for images which are well-censored. But, we ain't exactly dealing with rational laws here - or any degree of common sense.

Try completely overlaying the image with a packshot of shoes and tell em there is hardcore porn underneath and let the DOJ ponder over it

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

No go here. 2257 states that if the original image is explicit than the croped or otherwised altered image must still have 2257 docs.

Sorry.

It's either softcore originals or 2257 docs.

Wondered about that.... interesting.

NTSS · 06-15-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

No go here. 2257 states that if the original image is explicit than the croped or otherwised altered image must still have 2257 docs.

Sorry.

It's either softcore originals or 2257 docs.

I wonder how they would know what the original image was before it was cropped? What if the image was cropped when you recieved it?

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTSS

I wonder how they would know what the original image was before it was cropped? What if the image was cropped when you recieved it?

they use special x-ray laser technique to find it out ...

seriously, they can't find it out.

It's censored, thus softcore ...

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

But, we ain't exactly dealing with rational laws here - or any degree of common sense.

Webby,
No disrespect sir, but we all know why this law is coming about.... it's because there are 1% of jackasses, and 99% of people that make a living with real porn.

I don't think any US law is totally rational, and I fuckin live here. Congress didn't invent this shit thinking "HEY! This would be a GREAT FUCKING IDEA TO RELEASE PORN MODELS IDENTITIES!" as your sig would suggest. They did it to protect chil**ren. Largely from NON US areas.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Interesting question!!! :-)

Hard to see a judge or jury convicting on no record-keeping for images which are well-censored. But, we ain't exactly dealing with rational laws here - or any degree of common sense.

Try completely overlaying the image with a packshot of shoes and tell em there is hardcore porn underneath and let the DOJ ponder over it

If the original pic had sexually explicit content and you don't have the docs youa re in violation. Censoring won't matter. A jury is supposed to follow the law and the law says you have to have the docs if you don't then you are guilty. It's that simple.

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If the original pic had sexually explicit content and you don't have the docs youa re in violation. Censoring won't matter. A jury is supposed to follow the law and the law says you have to have the docs if you don't then you are guilty. It's that simple.

If a rap song has F**K censored, how can the jury know it ment FUCK and not FUNK?

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nastyking

If a rap song has F**K censored, how can the jury know it ment FUCK and not FUNK?

Well I guess rap artists beter the the 2257 info on the word FUCK then.

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Well I guess rap artists beter the the 2257 info on the word FUCK then.

That's fucking classic....

"Hey! F*** this... and hey F*** youB*** I'm a one man N**ga!!"
(2257 compliance notice at Sony Records)

)

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:37 AM

xclusive · 06-15-2005, 12:39 AM

law says you can't censor but who is to say the cropped pic isn't the origional? They can't prove it but i'm not going to try them on it

darnit · 06-15-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If the original pic had sexually explicit content and you don't have the docs youa re in violation. Censoring won't matter. A jury is supposed to follow the law and the law says you have to have the docs if you don't then you are guilty. It's that simple.

Does it apply ONLY to the original picture or the entire set that the pic came from?

So for example a thumb is made from a crop of the first picture in a set which is softcore. If the subsequent images become "explicit" is using the softcore crop of a softcore picture as a marketing tool of an explicit gallery in violation?

I know the logical answer is no but this is not a logical law. Does anyone know?

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

Does it apply ONLY to the original picture or the entire set that the pic came from?

So for example a thumb is made from a crop of the first picture in a set which is softcore. If the subsequent images become "explicit" is using the softcore crop of a softcore picture as a marketing tool of an explicit gallery in violation?

I know the logical answer is no but this is not a logical law. Does anyone know?

rotfl .. you better start keeping docs on holiday photos you upload to the web. the original COULD contain sexual explicit content ...

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xclusive

law says you can't censor but who is to say the cropped pic isn't the origional? They can't prove it but i'm not going to try them on it

Are you that dumb? OK play chicken with the DOJ. I'm trying to answer serious questions and get crap about rap songs and pics of brad pitt.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

Does it apply ONLY to the original picture or the entire set that the pic came from?

So for example a thumb is made from a crop of the first picture in a set which is softcore. If the subsequent images become "explicit" is using the softcore crop of a softcore picture as a marketing tool of an explicit gallery in violation?

I know the logical answer is no but this is not a logical law. Does anyone know?

well everyone has an opinion and the way I read it is ANY pics from the same set( mean they came from the same shoot ) are hardcore then ALL the pics(even the softcore ) has to have the 2257 docs.

remember the supposed goal of 2257 is too make sure no one under 18 was making dirty pics. Now if some 16 year old made some porn pics and you only posted the un-naughty parts from that shoot can you get into trouble? I would think so.

Also it's not only the chicks this law applies to. You have to have the info on the guys too.

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 12:48 AM

GatorB

Somebody has to keep docs on sexual explicit content. That's obvious and was always the case.

But if you only publish the censored, non-explicit pictures .. YOU, YOURSELF don't have to keep any docs ...

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nastyking

GatorB

Somebody has to keep docs on sexual explicit content. That's obvious and was always the case.

But if you only publish the censored, non-explicit pictures the only thing you have to make sure is that your sponsor has proper documents for the uncensored pictures.

It's your business not mine. If it were me I'd either get the docs or not fuck with it. Don't be surprised when the DOJ doesn't think you playing cutesy with the 2257 rules is funny.

darnit · 06-15-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

well everyone has an opinion and the way I read it is ANY pics from the same set( mean they came from the same shoot ) are hardcore then ALL the pics(even the softcore ) has to have the 2257 docs.

remember the supposed goal of 2257 is too make sure no one under 18 was making dirty pics. Now if some 16 year old made some porn pics and you only posted the un-naughty parts from that shoot can you get into trouble? I would think so.

Also it's not only the chicks this law applies to. You have to have the info on the guys too.

I tend to agree with you. Unfortunatly no one - not even lawyers seem to have the answer on this. In my mind it DOES seem to be a bit of a stretch. I just wish there was a definative answer to this one.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

I tend to agree with you. Unfortunatly no one - not even lawyers seem to have the answer on this. In my mind it DOES seem to be a bit of a stretch. I just wish there was a definative answer to this one.

Well there will be no answers until AFTER someone gets busted and they go through a trial.

blackmonsters · 06-15-2005, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xclusive

law says you can't censor but who is to say the cropped pic isn't the origional? They can't prove it but i'm not going to try them on it

If the DOJ is really looking hard at pics then there will be that one pic of that really hot girl that's easy to remember that you used as cropped that every other webmaster with 2257 docs used as explicit and it will ring a bell and they will visit you.
Murphy's law.

darnit · 06-15-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Well there will be no answers until AFTER someone gets busted and they go through a trial.

sad but true.

nastyking · 06-15-2005, 01:18 AM

GatorB - Your logic is flawed insofar as you treat the censored and the uncensored picture as the same picture.

06-14-2005, 11:55 PM	#1
cambaby So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: CR Posts: 3,141	Censored images ok for 2257? A friend of mine is an Asian webmaster and says in his country there are rules about censoring images they display on thier website, such as blotting out hardcore areas of an image. I realize none of you are lawyers but what is your take on censored images.

06-14-2005, 11:58 PM	#2
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	good question. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

06-15-2005, 12:03 AM	#5
emthree Dialer Kingpin Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New York Posts: 10,816	huh, what? Which Country? __________________ • Sell Patches & Pills •

06-15-2005, 12:07 AM	#6
nastyking Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,174	If you think about you will realize that there is no way to check what the original image was about. I don't know the law text, but common sense tells me that censoring should be fine. I'd appreciate if any of the you guys could show me the law text that says different .. __________________

06-15-2005, 12:37 AM	#16
nastyking Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,174	__________________

06-15-2005, 12:39 AM	#17
xclusive Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 35,218	law says you can't censor but who is to say the cropped pic isn't the origional? They can't prove it but i'm not going to try them on it __________________ I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /

06-15-2005, 12:48 AM	#22
nastyking Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,174	GatorB Somebody has to keep docs on sexual explicit content. That's obvious and was always the case. But if you only publish the censored, non-explicit pictures .. YOU, YOURSELF don't have to keep any docs ... __________________

06-15-2005, 01:18 AM	#28
nastyking Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,174	GatorB - Your logic is flawed insofar as you treat the censored and the uncensored picture as the same picture. __________________