That is absurd. If I take an image on a girl in the nude and photoshop a dress on then it is no longer a nude image. If I pass that amended image on to someone else who is unaware of the amendment then by this logic he can be done for not having the correct paperwork on a clothed image.

If what you say is true then the purpose of all this is to make sure people cannot reasonably comply and shut everyone down...oh wait sorry that is the intention!

Seriously though laws that are inherently flawed or designed to make sure people fail never have a long shelf life...

...fingers crossed

I see creative text links becoming vogue again.

"help Sir Sexalot storm the hairy castle"

to many guessing games guys.

if you have a family, you need to protect yourselves.

see sig!!!

AMEN!! :thumbsup

Alot of "affiliates" forget they're still running a "business"

What you say is completely logical - but since when did the law become logical, especially this one?
You simply CANNOT crop an explicit image and be exempt from the requirements. All the industry lawyers agree on this.
You can't follow the law by just using common sense. If there was any logic or common sense involved here, this whole law for secondary producers would never have passed.

"Well documented" yet I've never seen it, it's never been posted anywhere and I don't know of any lawyer who said that cropped images specifically fall under 2257.

The only lawyer(s) who may have said this was the fear monger pushing his grossly overpriced 2257 software "to keep you out of prison."

Its for the children.. The children man.. :disgust

You're right - I shouldn't have used the term "well documented". Maybe "well defined" would have been better. I can not quote what related title / section / subsection / paragraph / subparagraph it is in, but it is there in plain English. I did this research and sought legal advice on this long ago.

Hey FSC! Whats the deal?
 

It seems like there is some differences between the opinions of the different FSC lawyers I've read. One seems to say that since this is a new law, it changes everything. Another says that nothing has changed since the underlying law is already is under challenge and Judge Miller has issued an injunction.
Does the new law - HR 4426 - trump Judge Millers injunction and make it moot or not? Are secondary producers who are FSC members still exempt from inspections or not?
I know that some lawyers are saying that they won't comment since it hasn't been signed into law yet. Do you really think for 1 minute that Bush will not sign it? So for the sake of argument, ASSUME that he will.
Will the FSC challenge this new law? Or do they think that is unnecessary because of the appeal to the current law?

A lot of webmasters joined the FSC so that they could be exempt from inspections during the appeal process. Does the new law affect their status?
I for one would like to know the status BEFORE the new law is signed and goes into effect, not afterwards.
If there is some differences of opinions, then I think the FSC should make that clear and give us a best case/worse case scenario.
I was happy to pay my dues to the FSC for a membership but think it's time for their lawyers to step up a bit.

fuck this.....

Do a search for this. If the origianl image was explicit you are screwed with a crop. I cannot find that version of 2257 that is easy to read but will keep looking. It was pretty darn clear in the actual language of the law.

here is the link - http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

And I think this is the part that screws us on crops.

(2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).

They are classified as an Internet Information Retrieval Tool and thus do not need the docs.

You can read the entire legislation here http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h4472.pdf
Sec 501. pertains to the 2257 record keeping requirements.

1) Actually, I as a "Secondary Producer", have been exempt from the record keeping requirements til now

2) I have invested in my own content

3) The only bitching is because of others unwillingness to be cooperative in sharing documentation so that all would be compliant. It is a partnership afterall, correct?

4) No losses on my end to worry about. I have my ducks in a row, except for sponsor content,, that's the only content I have to worry aout when it comes to 2257.

oops5678

So does anyone have a good answer for the original question regarding secondary producers (affiliates)?

Will this kill free sites / galleries?

It was so much simpler before to just list the sponsor(s) as the custodian of records, whereas now, the changes require "secondary producers" to be their own custodian of records.. (I think.. correct me If I am wrong.. this is more of a question, than a statement.. I am looking for clarification.)

Since last year "secondary producers" have been required to be the custodian of records. FSC members were supposedly exempt from this as the FSC filed a lawsuit. I do not know if the forth coming law witll override the FSC lawsuit or not. There seems to be different legal opinions about that.

What most people do not seem to understand that even if the FSC won their lawsuit it would only cover those that live within that courts district and would not be binding on another court district. Those in the pornography business are at risk, end of story. One is subject to legal prosecution for any number of things, community standards "defining obcenity" are still in legal play.

oh man. wtf is going on. what the heck is wrong with a text link?


can someone tell me that if I host abroad, then I am exempt from this.

can someone hit me up please on icq and tell me what i need to do

Text links are apparently safe at this point, but if you live in the USA it does not make any difference where your hosting is, if you are displaying images/videos served from your host.

hey thats really scary, i would like to see what all these thumb tgps will do...

With all of this, all I can say, and I know that everyone will agree, that this is FUCKED up. It is way too far, way too encompasing. People in this thread talk of protecting families, which is fine and true. It is like we are the mob and we are under attack. Like we are criminals. One morning we are businessmen and the next we are criminals. Think about that. That is totally insane.

Not only that, one morning we are fine. The next, we wake up and we are RETROACTIVE criminals. I say this is Internet Prohibition. Think about the control that is going to be illustrated here if the Gov pulls this off. It will be...monumental. How strong is this board? How strong are we as an industry? Are we one for all and all for one? Or are we, 'fuck, I'm jumping ship'?

I don't know guys. I don't know the answer to all of this. But it SMELLS! The whole thing just SMELLS!

Most of the above is just a rant. I just don't get it. It is all false bullshit.

so apparently cropping explicit images is out of the question. softcore is still safe though? you can show nudity as long as there is no penetration? thats not such a bad thing aside from fucking up what every one is currently doing. will less explicit images available for free make more people join sites? either way, i agree with the above poster.

Just account for every possible image and then don't worry about it AS much.

Here's another question I like to hear some of your opinions on...

It seems some lawyers and armchair lawyers have based their interpretations of the new laws saying explict content can not be manipulated/cropped without making that person a secondary producer. Making them subject to all the 2257 record keeping requirments. From what I've read this seems to be what is being pushed forward by this fucked up administration.

Question:

What if a image or video cap was from an explict scene, but the image used by those consider "secondary producers" was non explict?

Example:

Using using a image from a shoot or scene before the sexualy explicit activity begins. In most shoots there are usually start out full clothed, lingerie, or topless posing.

I can see where cropping out the only the face of a girl whose actually getting double anal in a five man gangbang could be a problem.

I don't know, but I'm glad I began developing a solution for 2257 the first time around.

Stop. Look at your second sentence.

"If I take an image on a girl in the nude and photoshop a dress on then it is no longer a nude image."

So you are saying that if you take a photograph of a minor, photoshop a dress on her you haven't photographed a minor nude?

Your logic also means if you take a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass but crop out all but her face, you haven't taken a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass?

Affiliates can't though, that's the problem. Unless we start only using our own paid for content with just text links to sponsors. No more banners, logos, etc.

Correct, how would an affiliate know if the original image was altered?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Taking a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass is legal, the other example you showed is illegal. So a person can take a photo of the dildo girl, and as long as they have that full photo, they probably need some sort of ID although i'm not sure how the law works for personal photos. If they crop out everything and just show her face then put it on the web, I highly doubt they need to post 2257 information, especially if it's a posed face of her smiling and not looking in pain.

I also don't think they're going to go after people who even take a fully nude photo from the web and crop out the bad stuff, even if they can show the cropped photo came from a fully nude photo. There is no nudity, nor even any hinted nudity of a photo of just a girls face. They would have a real hard time busting people for that, so it won't happen.

As far as photoshopping blurs or stuff over nudity, i'm not sure how that works. That's something people would probably have to talk to a lawyer about, but the cropping issue seems like a non issue

Debating whether the rules are fair and reasonable might be entertaining, but ultimately the only question which matters is what risks are you prepared to take. Given the relatively small resources being applied, you may feel that your chances of being inspected are minimal. But unless that is the basis on which your actions are decided, it's hard to see much sense in doing anything other than making sure you are in line with the strictest interpretation of the law.

I say that because even if some of the points being thrown around here might form part of a defense and even if that defense is ultimately successful, if matters go that far, your finances may be ruined. The reality is that most couldn't afford to defend a federal case, so despite the brave talk on here, if the FBI do come knocking and aren't satisfied, many people will be deep in the brown, smelly stuff.

Take the cropping issue as an example. The 2257 rules are ostensibly about making sure that minors are not used in porn production. If the FBI take the trouble to visit you and see on one of your pages from 6 months ago (you are keeping copies of changed pages as required, right?) a headshot of a young-looking girl, is it reasonable to imagine they will ignore it? Or is it more likely they will ask to see the whole image, perhaps the whole photoshoot?

In terms of where you life is imminently headed if their enquiries reveal hardcore material and no supporting documents, it is irrelevant whether 3 years later a judge rules that the headshot was all you were displaying and therefore the charges are dismissed...

spacedog - this has been the law since june 23, 2005.

according to several adult attorneys i talked to, you could be responsible for dressed or non excplicit pics that were from hardcore sets and very possibly an edited explicit pic will still require i.d. all the lawyers said that since there is no way to know how each judge would see it, so there is no ultimate right answer regarding cropped pics.

Thumbs tgps convert much worse than text tgps anyway.

btw anyone needs free hosting?

No, softcore is NOT safe anymore, according to FSC attorney Jeffrey Douglas-
" According to Douglas, the bill also mandates record-keeping for depictions of simulated sex act and exhibitions of mere nudity."
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...eview&coid=630

Another problem is that a lot of "Primary producers" have contractual obligations with the models which prohibit them from releasing 2257 info to anyone - including affiliates - without a court order.
So at this point, the only thing that seems safe is text links that lead to galleries that are hosted on other people's servers. And we all know how badly most free hosted galleries convert.
Time to face it - we are all fucked.

With these laws, how are people still able to make free sites and galleries? I want to start doing that again but not if i'm going to get screwed by stupid secondary producer laws. Assuming I don't buy my own content that is

My first example is illegal because of the original photo not the cropped photo. That is why cropping is irrelevant.

we should just pool our money and buy an Island where we can all work from.. that would solve everything :)

or you can just move to a different country :)

I thought this whole 2257 bullshit was over...

Any of y'all that aren't preparing to move completely offshore are missing out...

This will be my view in a little less than a year.

http://www.blackvaginafinder.com/misc/paradise1.jpg