2257 documentation required or not?
 

Hi!

This is not a question for legal advise. I only want a rough estimate, an opinion.

Would you think that pictures like the ones shown at

http://www.domai.com/photos.html

require a 2257 documentation and show actual or simulated sexual conduct?

I am not associated with this site. I use that public page just as an example.

Yes, you need to have the 2257 info to cover your ass with pics like that.

That particular site does not require 2257 because they are not based nor shoot the stuff in the US.

The site states it does not contain porn.

How's the feeling in the US? Does a picture of a nude girl that just is standing there naked is seen automatically as a picture requiring a 2257 documentation and be porn?

2257 and the permission to publish are two different things - of course.

Well...You're an idiot. :glugglug

Next.

No, the content on that site WOULD NOT require 2257...BUT....You should have it anyway IMHO. :2 cents:

Sleazy have already said that...

Anyway, I was pretty sure you needed the 2257-info for a site like that. Sorry.

If I was you, I would ask your sponsor. If he cant answer, means he dont know and you should not promote him.

Except if you live outside US and dont use server or have domain registered there, you dont need to follow that stupid law.

2256 tells you what needs a 2257
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/18%20USC%202256_text.html

I would think by the letter of the law those pics would not need a 2257 as they could be considered erotic art. However in reality who really wants to take the chance?

I'm going to be working with a photographer in the near future and that's the type of content we will be shooting. However I don't think I'd even risk not having the full 2257 info.

"has"....Sleazy "has" already said that. He's right.

Perhaps you should not give any sort of advice on topics which you have no knowledge of.

A gagging bj/facial video could also be considered erotic art depending on who?s viewing it.

The bottom line is whether or not they show actual or simulated sexual contact.

Those pics don't even have spread shots...Let alone sexual contact.

These days, what is legal is often less relevant than the corporate policies of those you do business. This is a form of (legal) corporate censorship - fundamentalist political pressures applied to economic infrastructures result in dogmatic policies passed down the front lines (unprotected by constitutions).

Rather than splitting hairs on semantics re erotica/art, your CC processor clearly states the following as a violation of their TOS:

D. The posting, display, or advertising of any image using a model or models under the age of 18 years anywhere on the site whether the models are clothed or unclothed.

If there is any doubt, then you will need to prove it.

'clothed or unclothed'

:2 cents:

-Dino

Ok. What you quote from a CC processor might be his policy.

My original question was whether a site can show naked adults who are not engaged in any sexual activity but just showing their naked body. And whether this kind of pictures nowadays requires a 2257 documentation or not.

It seems it does not from what people have answerd.

Of course this is only peoples opinion and not a legal advise. Thanks everybody who answered.

ever check the legal section? http://www.domai.com/text/legal-statements.html

The site which was referenced for the example photos uses a CC processor whose policies require all models be 18 and over.

That overrides anything else.

You cannot even show clothed adults if they are under 18.

If you are NOT using a CC processor (or affiliated with most sponsors) then that may be a different matter, but it would be rare in that most sites are doing business with someone who adheres to the above rule (18+ period) and requires it be observed by those it does business with.

-Dino

Seriously always and i do mean always use them...:2 cents:

I am not interested in anything under 18. Just 18+ in any case.