If you have read anything about 2257 in the past, you should already know google ect..ect.. are already exempt.

Let me get this straight. I just opened a tgp which I was working for about a month now and it's thumb based. While I completely forgot on my part to check out the 2257 on the explicit part which would require me to have 2257 info linked back, that is no longer the case. I am left with 2 options from what I thought would be to go either a text tgp or still be thumb but not be explicit. Yet, if I am correct from what I am reading, it can just be "nude" no masturbation/penetration / sex and I can still be on grounds for investigation. Please say it ain't so.. I am going to be really disappointed -_-.

I'd definitely wouldn't mind just doing a non explicit tgp.

As usual, their clarifications and additions need more clarifications! The proposal says the statement must be "affixed" to each page containing the content in question. This change was from the previous requirement that said only the root and other "known major entry points" had to have the statement affixed to them (which was a pre-approved text link to a 2257 page). It's not 100% that a hyperlink is NOT "affixing"..
Once again the DOJ used terms that, while it may believe are perfectly clear, they are not.

:thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It was like that before.. however now "anything" in regards to sexual material involving pictures or videos needs full 2257.

So even if the girl is fully clothed in your thumbnails, but links to a gallery that is intended to be "sexually arousing" .. Well you need full 2257 info.

ok so fine artists and fine art photographers are not FCC regulated, they don't qualify for the "Hollywood Pass" so they will by hit by 2257 as well.

In the event one is targeted, I would imagine the ACLU fights it out and we get our first new case law that way.

http://jeremayakovka.typepad.com/pho...the_world.jpeg

That isn?t entirely true. As I read it, they want a multi-factor test, and one of those factors is it a picture of the pubic area. Thus, if the image is above the waist you could even use bare breasted pictures.

Hope to see 2257's on Victoria's Secrets website. :1orglaugh

Never assume Gator - You are talking about relatively uncultured folks from the FBI doing the checking :winkwink:

They had to have refresher classes at Quantico to point out Iraq on the map, so....



PS Na.. There are some bright guys and girls there - it's the usual trash that let them down.

Yeah but good luck finding sets with that many fully clothed pictures, and why the fuck would a surfer use your sites, when all the european sites don't give a rats ass about 2257? Huge competition problems.

Hire me for all your blog design needs!!

50 :)

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire thing.. what is posted in this thread's first post, is just a very small part of the updates. I'd suggest you read the entire thing.

Those are the bullet points.

I already read through it and the only correction I need to make is that I meant to use the word depiction not picture.
See:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/E7-13500.pdf
Above the waist depictions are fine no matter how arousing. Just keep in make sure you don?t run afoul of the other existing definitions of sexually explicit already in 2256. In the Federal register they say what they want the test to determine if a depiction is a lascivious display of the pubic area vs. a non lascivious display. It makes more since if you read the Federal Register yourself because no matter how well someone else explains it they leave something out and it creates misunderstandings.

crockett, don't you only need 2257 docs for content on your own host? Why would you need docs for the sponsor's hosted galleries? That makes no sense at all. If the images on your site are not sexually-explicit then you don't need any records. When the surfer clicks the non-explicit thumb, they get the FHG, which is on the sponsor's host... therefore they are responsible for the 2257 docs.

Damn! A Player!

how will this affect hosting and domain registration companies ?

america is going to be worse than Iran was I'll tallya that HAHA!