So according to the new regs. would this TGP now need 2257 info on a pic like this? (
 

Question - So according to the new 2257 regs. Would a TGP (in this case BunnyTeens.com, just as an example) need to maintain records for a thumbnail image like this one? It's sexually explicit.

http://www.bunnyteens.com/madtgp/thumbs/809486.jpg

But not for this one? Since it's not sexually explicit.

http://www.bunnyteens.com/madtgp/thumbs/806455.jpg

Are you a secondary producer if you only list text links to other sites with sexually explicit content?

That would suck.

yes the explicit hardcore thumbnail would need model ID/release and be in your database correctly cross-indexed etc

i believe that a non explicit thumb cropped from an explicit image does NOT need to comply with 2257.

you can link to whatever you want, you're not responsible for anything on a page you don't own.

Would 2 girls swapping cum be considered sexually explicit? That is my question, as I have a site devoted to spermswapping, and I dunno what the dealio is for it. Thanks!

nah, pissing and scat arent sexual either

beast is also ok, im still having trouble calculating all the dog years to human years but its coming along

Image on needs id and data. If image two is cropped from an explict image it also needs the data and id.
'
go figure, that really means you better have the full NON explict image to prove it is not cropped from and explicit image.

I beg to differ - I believe it does. Even a softcore image taken from a hardcore set has to comply.

I have yet to see a big thumb tgp that is in compliance. Some are just cropping the face from a hardcore pic, but it still doesn't satisfy the requirement.

show me the part of 2257 that says a crop of a face from a hardcore image must comply. i've seen other people say it but i've yet to see anybody provide the section of 2257.

u might be right - it would make sense but please post the language that covers it in 2257.

You are an AMERICAN - AND THEREFORE YOU ARE FUCKED - TAKE CARE.

Read! Read Read!

All very good points in this thread.

Someone copy and paste the language, if it exists, that says you have to have 2257 info on a non sexually explicit image, if it is cropped from a sexually explicit image.

Will all TGPs simply switch out their thumbs so that none are sexually explicit. Seems like the easy answer.

Let's go over what 2257 says.....

A secondary producer is any person who [serves content]... intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct

I personally do not see any "actual sexually explicit conduct" in the second image regardless of it's original source. It clearly contains no "visual depiction" of such activity.

I know a lot of people will say the opposite, but this is my stance and what I'm going through with. A lot of people are taking the ultra safe approach, which is fine too.

talk to a lawyer, i could be wrong... but i dont think any lawyers have posted in this thread.

Most of the lawyers are saying to play it safe and have model ID's on hand even if you cropped it, and that's definitely the absolute zero-risk method. Which is what people generally pay lawyers to give out.


I am not sweating this at all though, and here is an example why.

Assume photos that show people standing next to a bird are illegal.

If you were to take a photo of me standing next to a bird, that photo would contain a visual depiction of me standing next to a bird. Totally illegal.

But if you were to chop the photo afterwords so that it's just me, is it still a visual depiction of me standing next to a bird? No, because you can not have a visual depiction of something YOU CANT SEE in the photo.

To me this is all just common sense.

Because the ORIGINAL pic was hardcore. Say the girl in question was 16. Would cropping out the sex mean she didn't engage in CP? Um no. Can anyone legally own a copy of a Tracy Lords movie made before she was 18 as long as the hardcore parts were edited out? No.

Nice spot for my sig.

I am 2257 dfhy rtyr ytry rtytr yer

And on that i believe you to be wrong. If i bought the softcore footage from a producer who shot the Traci Lords movie and I took all the softcore footage from it and edited together a new movie - it would not need to comply with 2257. The only legal problem would be totally seperate issue, if the cops found out that during that shoot she was also hired underage to perform sexual acts then the producer would be charged with a crime. But me with my softcore movie made from footage shot on that day - not a thing they could do about that. no way, no how if i wasn't involved in hiring her to perform sexual acts.

i dont think it needs.

Bad argument. Then would the thumbnail actually lead to a full-size pic that includes the bird? Under your argument all the thumbnails cropped to not show sexual action would have to be going to go to full-size pics not showing sexual action.

The bottom line is that cropped content issues have never gone to court, so you've just got to do what you feel comfortable with.

Your scenario is brought up a lot, and that kind of thing is a cause for concern to any TGP owner regardless of 2257. But I don't think it applies to 2257 records keeping since there was nothing sexual in what you published. However, you can still get into trouble and that certainly is nothing new.

If you post a cropped headshot thumb of a CP pic that points to someone else's CP gallery, you may be charged with conspiracy to disseminate CP.

So even though I don't think it applies to 2257 records keeping, I could see the reality in them knocking on your door asking about a suspected CP gallery located in Russia that you linked to via a "clean" thumb. Who knows where that could then lead to.

Mutt -

We were actually told different on this. A cropped pic is still a sexually explicit pic when in it's original form. For 2257 you have to keep an original copy of the image on file. So even if you use a cropped headshot that was cropped form a pic where she is getting double teamed.. You would need 2257 info on that.

lol. I guess I should have read the rest of the thread first

headaches

Is that to say you cannot publish a submitted non-explicit thumb without first asking the submitter for a copy of the image that was cropped verify the image was cropped from a non-explicit image?

The content you link to has NOTHING to do with 2257. That argument is totally blown.

That would be for you and your attorneys to decide.
If you are being safe, create your own thumbs so you are sure

Opinions needed...

What about text links to sexually explicit images?

If I simply provide a link to a sexually explicit image, am I a secondary producer?

Someone posted a transcription from a webmaster that called the DOJ. The DOJ said that even text links require you to hold IDs because they are advertising sexually explicit sites. Your best bet is to find a good lawyer and ask him.

That doesn't make any sense.

Then Yahoo and Google have to start keeping records like a mo-fo for all their links to sexually explicit content.

Personally I never expect laws & regulations pertaining to facets of technology that lawmakers don't understand to make sense... then I'm never disappointed. :winkwink:

How do you know that there isnt some guy eating out the girl in image two?

But by no means is it censorship...


LOL!

You people really crack me up. Making excuses for the loss of freedom.

I don't think you need 2257 records for a cropped thumb from a hardcore set if it doesn't have anything sexually explict in it. You are not hosting any sexually explict content, when a person clicks the cropped thumb and you can see hardcore thumbs you can also see the primary producers 2257 link on the same page. It makes sense, but the whole 2257 law is written in such a way that they can basically twist it around however they want.

I'm taking non-nude images from hardcore sets and linking them via text to the FHG.
If that gets me tossed in jail then so be it and I'll fight it like a mother fucker...because at that point I'm already in shackles.

Talking this over with TheDoc he brought up a very valid point.
The DOJ wants to make a solid case, not something that can be locked up and argued for years.. They are in business to win, to become judges and politicians, not lose on stupid crap like that.

So with that in mind, I don't believe they will be targetting people who are linking non-nude images to sites with explicit content on them, or to bust people with text links.

ANSWER: YOU my friend are screwed, you just posted a hardcore image for which you probably do not have the model release for in this thread.

COme to think of it, so am I, since I replied to your message, and thus created a new post of an explicit image without model release. To be safe I have removed the first image from my post.

God this law is so ridiculous - get out of the States now!!

She was 18 in 1986 - at least excempt from 2257 :winkwink:

Yes, anything with cum is explicit.

Thanks for all the great input...

Any other thoughts?