Let's have a 2257 quiz... - GoFuckYourself.com

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 12:38 AM

You take a picture of a naked girl walking down the street. The pictures you take show full frontal nudity.

Now you want to publish the pictures on your website.

Of course you need a model release. That is a given.

Now on to the quiz...

Do the pictures you take need 2257 documentation or are they exempt from 2257 requirements?

What do you think and why?

Hugs,
Danielle

Jace · 02-01-2007, 12:39 AM

if the pics were taken in a public setting I think new rules apply

otherwise all those nude beach pics all over the internet would need model release and 2257 docs

LiveDose · 02-01-2007, 12:40 AM

Is she touching herself? Is the photo artistic? Is she famous/newsworthy?

SleazyDream · 02-01-2007, 12:40 AM

regardless of 2257 - I'd wana know pure and simple if she was over 18 or not.

under 18 - it's possible for you to be procuticated for child porn - JUST haveing it - not even publishing it.

Jace · 02-01-2007, 12:40 AM

eh, who am I kidding, I don't care, I am taking guesses

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 12:47 AM

Let's say she is over 18 and you can prove it. And no she is not touching her pussy.

She is just 100% naked walking down the street.

Hugs,
Danielle

MandyBlake · 02-01-2007, 12:49 AM

i don't think you would need it.
its not blatantly sexual.
that's what i think.

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MandyBlake

i don't think you would need it.
its not blatantly sexual.
that's what i think.

Why would something being blatantly sexual need 2257? For example.

Two girls both naked. One is sucking on the others boob. You see this in many R rated movies and in many mens magazines. None of them have 2257 statements.

Food for thought.

Hugs,
Danielle

MandyBlake · 02-01-2007, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle

Why would something being blatantly sexual need 2257? For example.

Two girls both naked. One is sucking on the others boob. You see this in many R rated movies and in many mens magazines. None of them have 2257 statements.

Food for thought.

Hugs,
Danielle

cuz we're in a fucked up biz that's why lol

baddog · 02-01-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle

Why would something being blatantly sexual need 2257? For example.

Two girls both naked. One is sucking on the others boob. You see this in many R rated movies and in many mens magazines. None of them have 2257 statements.

Food for thought.

Hugs,
Danielle

this isn't a quiz

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 01:21 AM

Here is another example. Two girls both nude posing like one is about to suck on the others boob. Her tongue is out and and about 1/2 inch from the other girls nipple. The pic is very erotic and very sexual.

Remember that 2257 exempts simulated sex.

Does this require 2257 documentation?

Hugs,
Danielle

SleazyDream · 02-01-2007, 01:26 AM

great questions.

i honestly don't know - i'm canadian and comply to canadian obsenity laws with my site.

but i have docs for everything - concent forms and 2 forms of id - one picture- even when content producers tell me I don't need them - i demand them

MandyBlake · 02-01-2007, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle

Here is another example. Two girls both nude posing like one is about to suck on the others boob. Her tongue is out and and about 1/2 inch from the other girls nipple. The pic is very erotic and very sexual.

Remember that 2257 exempts simulated sex.

Does this require 2257 documentation?

Hugs,
Danielle

i would have it just in case.

BV · 02-01-2007, 01:30 AM

first off needing a model release to publish is not a given in every circumstance

if you hired, or arranged the shoot, and the shots contain lascivious display of the genitals, yes, you would need to follow the same rules as if you were shooting hard core porn

hr4472 (adam walsh bill) amended 2257 and took care of that loophole

if the shots do not contain lascivious display of the genitals, then no you don't

if you did not hire or arrange the shoot and are shooting some random naked chick walking down a public street with no lascivious display of the genitals then that does not fall under 2257, if lascivious display, then yes technically it does, but still a grey area

Jace · 02-01-2007, 01:30 AM

best legal advice is...ALWAYS have model release and 2257, even if it is only boobies...then you are always safe from ANYTHING

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BV

first off needing a model release to publish is not a given in every circumstance

if you hired, or arranged the shoot, and the shots contain lascivious display of the genitals, yes, you would need to follow the same rules as if you were shooting hard core porn

hr4472 (adam walsh bill) amended 2257 and took care of that loophole

if the shots do not contain lascivious display of the genitals, then no you don't

if you did not hire or arrange the shoot and are shooting some random naked chick walking down a public street with no lascivious display of the genitals then that does not fall under 2257, if lascivious display, then yes technically it does, but still a grey area

Great post BV. The keyword you posted is lascivious.... Now the next question is... Does anyone know what lascivious really is?

Also, what if the picture is lascivious but is simulated sex????

Hugs,
Danielle

BV · 02-01-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle

Great post BV. The keyword you posted is lascivious.... Now the next question is... Does anyone know what lascivious really is?

Also, what if the picture is lascivious but is simulated sex????

Hugs,
Danielle

1. i know what lascivious is

2. simulated sex & lascivious = yes , hr4472 took care of that also

After Shock Media · 02-01-2007, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle

Great post BV. The keyword you posted is lascivious.... Now the next question is... Does anyone know what lascivious really is?

Also, what if the picture is lascivious but is simulated sex????

Hugs,
Danielle

In the legal and or safe route of the word "lascivious" is still legally obscure for a few reasons. Either way it means lewd, indecent and obscene. It also should also be depraves sexual morals.

Now we repeat the cycle again and again. What is lewd, what is indecent, what is obscene, and what are the sexual moral things that it must deprave.
None of the above is easy to define and it is a circular argument that you will only discover the answer to when twelve strangers decide amongst themselves and tell you.

GT-Omar · 02-01-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

regardless of 2257 - I'd wana know pure and simple if she was over 18 or not.

under 18 - it's possible for you to be procuticated for child porn - JUST haveing it - not even publishing it.

What ^ he said !

Danielle · 02-01-2007, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

In the legal and or safe route of the word "lascivious" is still legally obscure for a few reasons. Either way it means lewd, indecent and obscene. It also should also be depraves sexual morals.

Now we repeat the cycle again and again. What is lewd, what is indecent, what is obscene, and what are the sexual moral things that it must deprave.
None of the above is easy to define and it is a circular argument that you will only discover the answer to when twelve strangers decide amongst themselves and tell you.

The bad part of what you just posted is.... You are 100% right...

Hugs,
Danielle

Dukes · 02-01-2007, 05:46 AM

.............ok Danielle, where are the pics at....u have them...lol

Lykos · 02-01-2007, 06:45 AM

show us pics first

02-01-2007, 12:38 AM	#1
Danielle Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: My Coffin Posts: 1,227	Let's have a 2257 quiz... You take a picture of a naked girl walking down the street. The pictures you take show full frontal nudity. Now you want to publish the pictures on your website. Of course you need a model release. That is a given. Now on to the quiz... Do the pictures you take need 2257 documentation or are they exempt from 2257 requirements? What do you think and why? Hugs, Danielle

02-01-2007, 12:40 AM	#3
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	Is she touching herself? Is the photo artistic? Is she famous/newsworthy? __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

02-01-2007, 12:40 AM	#4
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	regardless of 2257 - I'd wana know pure and simple if she was over 18 or not. under 18 - it's possible for you to be procuticated for child porn - JUST haveing it - not even publishing it. __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

02-01-2007, 12:49 AM	#7
MandyBlake The one and only! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 17,761	i don't think you would need it. its not blatantly sexual. that's what i think. __________________ Mandy's Playhouse Her First Fat Girl If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921

02-01-2007, 01:26 AM	#12
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	great questions. i honestly don't know - i'm canadian and comply to canadian obsenity laws with my site. but i have docs for everything - concent forms and 2 forms of id - one picture- even when content producers tell me I don't need them - i demand them __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

02-01-2007, 12:39 AM	#2
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	if the pics were taken in a public setting I think new rules apply otherwise all those nude beach pics all over the internet would need model release and 2257 docs

02-01-2007, 12:47 AM	#6
Danielle Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: My Coffin Posts: 1,227	Let's say she is over 18 and you can prove it. And no she is not touching her pussy. She is just 100% naked walking down the street. Hugs, Danielle

02-01-2007, 01:21 AM	#11
Danielle Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: My Coffin Posts: 1,227	Here is another example. Two girls both nude posing like one is about to suck on the others boob. Her tongue is out and and about 1/2 inch from the other girls nipple. The pic is very erotic and very sexual. Remember that 2257 exempts simulated sex. Does this require 2257 documentation? Hugs, Danielle

02-01-2007, 01:30 AM	#14
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	first off needing a model release to publish is not a given in every circumstance if you hired, or arranged the shoot, and the shots contain lascivious display of the genitals, yes, you would need to follow the same rules as if you were shooting hard core porn hr4472 (adam walsh bill) amended 2257 and took care of that loophole if the shots do not contain lascivious display of the genitals, then no you don't if you did not hire or arrange the shoot and are shooting some random naked chick walking down a public street with no lascivious display of the genitals then that does not fall under 2257, if lascivious display, then yes technically it does, but still a grey area

02-01-2007, 05:46 AM	#21
Dukes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 440	.............ok Danielle, where are the pics at....u have them...lol __________________ ICQ- 218503927 AIM- DannyDks

02-01-2007, 06:45 AM	#22
Lykos Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: World Posts: 31,027	show us pics first __________________