is 2257 required for no-nude paysites ?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s040.htm

oh boy.

consult an attorney and never rely on what you see others doing.

The lascivious exhibition also apply to clothed models, but only to depictions produced after 18th March 2009.

If the pictures are intended to be of a sexual nature (and/or the websites / venues they're shown in), even if no nudity, 2257 would be wise to have.

Nudity alone isn't what determines whether a 2257 is required or not, but rather the intended use of the pictures. Nudism books, such as one will find on Amazon, B&N, etc, often have no 2257s on file and depict people of all ages, including minors, in the nude.

Digress a bit, but point is that it's how the pictures are posed / intended use that determines whether one needs a 2257 ... based on what you've described, in my view, you need to ensure all models, even those fully clothed, are of legal age and have 2257s for all of them.

With all that said, definitely consult with an attorney experienced with the adult business before hiring any models, let alone shooting any content.

Ron

Thats a very good explanation... and legally correct.

well specifically I am talking about celebrity sites. Where do you get the contents ?

I dont think its so much a 2257 issue for you but more of a copyright question ........you can buy celeb content from many sources but its mega expensive ( the proper licenced stuff)..im not talking just ripped stuff.

Example:

The pics on my celeb blog at www.CelebrityGazette.com are fully licenced from the copyright holders...and come with terms/regulations how they can be used etc.

If your looking to build a site like some of these big celeb paysites you see..tread carefully and consult a lawyer.....its complex ground your walking.

Talk to a lawyer. The way the regulation is written... it might be broad enough to catch unlucky producers. Better safe than sorry and NO, you don't want to be the test case 'defining' the terms of the regulation.

Ultimately, it comes down to ..... you and your lawyer are in front of a federal judge/jury. Can you convince them that your images are exempt from 2257?

If you think you can convince them, then fuck 2257 and be a hero for the adult community. If you have doubts about your ability to convince a judge/jury, then play it safe by keeping 2257 docs.

One warning that I will point out. If you put a 2257 compliance statement on your site, then its like you are admitting that some or all of your images fall under 2257. If there is a problem with your docs during a 2257 inspection, then the judge/jury might not agree with you later, if you say you really did not even need those docs.

I almost forgot the most important thing .... some billing companies wont accept you without seeing some 2257 docs. Even if site is exempt from 2257, the billing company will probably require you to show a 2257 compliance statement and maybe show them some docs too.

If you use paypal, dont ask them to review your nonude site. The chances of a "nonude" site being accepted by paypal are slim or none. They might limit your account just for asking. Although, they seem less harsh towards webmasters in the past year or two (compared with 5 years ago). I would not be entirely surprised if paypal changes their stance eventually. Since they are in bed with rapidshare, they might be running out of ethical and legal room to stand on. I am waiting for them to be sued for denying porn membership sites while processing porn downloads for rapidshare.

After reading the definition of sexually explicit and few of those links, I can't really see how a

a) No Nudity
b) No Sexual Intercourse
c) Models are well over 18
d) Images are public already.

Would fall under porn. Would a member site be considered a porn site because it's restricted to 18+ and uses an adult processor like CCbill ?

I am also touching on copyright. I am told there's contents being sold on here that has celeb content that's downloaded from parts of the web. So if it's public already....what happens? What if it's a picture taken at a event and it's impossible to get the copyright holder (obviously no model releases).

Anyways, this is an interesting discussion.

the photographers own the paparazzi pics and red carpet pics usually. just because you see others selling/using them does not make it safe for you to.

On Swurve we don't allow any explicit content, but my merch bank suggested we do it anyway so we did. Its just a CYA and if we ever decide to expand into that territory the door is open. Doesn't really hurt anything to do it.

There is very little that is public domain... there is a lot of copyrighted material that is being infringed though.

Intent and usage matter...

Quoted part of your original question to emphasize what I mean by intent and usage. Despite no nudity, 2257s on file for all models would still be wise to have for such a site.

A celeb site likely would not need any 2257s. Again, it depends on intent and usage.

With a celeb site, copyright / licensing is the bigger issue.

An image, even if no copyright notice, is most typically copyrighted automatically under the law. Just because something is posted publicly all over the web does not make it public domain.

However, even if one owns the copyright to an image, one still needs to be careful how the image is used. Copyright alone does NOT grant one the right to use another person's picture / likeness ...

Is the person a famous / public figure? What is the context of the pictures? - are they being presented as entertainment news / commentary or as something else? None of these questions have anything to do with copyright, and yet they matter.

Ron

If your site is sexual in nature, it is often wise to have 2257, if only as a safeguard and keeps the rats from hassling you

Not 100% true, even if it makes sense.

If you put a 2257 excempt statement on your site, then you tell (not "admit") the images do not fall under 2257. I think it's wise to do so, rather than leaving out the excempt statement. They can't charge you for telling "do not inspect me", but only for not being in compliance.

The same can be said about anyone outside US jurisdiction. If they put a 2257 statement on their website, explicite or not, they do not "fall under 2257". They are still outside that jurisdiction, but they put it there because of something else, for instance a requirement from host, billing company or something else. In that case it's policy, not law enforcement.

I do not think it's the statement or lack of statement that trigger an inspection. They look at the content.

Standing in front of a judge can cost you a lot of money.

Be safe get 2257 documents and a model release on content you publish. And get an experienced lawyer.