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?

That's exactly what I'm doing; I grabbed all new images, cropped a thumb from them while saving the original I have. I can't prove the original image I grabbed, though, wasn't cropped from a larger image that had explicit content in it.

So in the end, and until there's cases won / lost in court, nobody knows dick, including the most high-priced lawyer firms. The only "good" advice I've heard from lawyers and anyone else is have your documents in line and all t's crossed, i's dotted or be as safe as possible with any non-sexually explicit image you physically place or link to on your website.

I've begun to realize these new additions to current regulations are both retarded by their ambiguity and, at the same time, do attempt to address a problem:

Take a person who tells you a watch is a Rolex. You buy it, or it's given to you and you sell it to someone else. The person you sold it to gets it appraised and it turns out the watch isn't a Rolex. You have no proof it is because you didn't ask for any from the person you got it from.

In my mind, I can apply this same analogy to these new additions to the 2257 regulations -- you take an image from somebody, assume on good-faith with no documentation that the image is legit and re-distribute it freely. What if the image wasn't legit? Should you be held at fault for redistributing it? Fuck yes you should.

By all means, these new additions are definitely obscure / not well defined / broadly open-ended / etc. However, and it could just be how I read into your posts, the "loss of freedom" you speak of sounds like you complaining about how you can't do whatever you want with content you may know nothing about which could contain legitimate illegal material.

As a responsible person in the adult business, how can you not what to verify all that you disseminate?

:2 cents:

Another possibility:
If you are hosting the gallery yourself on your server, and the nonexplicit thumb is linking to the explicit picture on your server, then you must include that thumb in your 2257 crossindexing.

If you were only hosting the nonexplicit thumb but not the explicit picture, then it would be exempt.

Just another interpretation...

Exhisting reg's work fine.
Nothing wrong with em. Infact NO 2257 Inspections have occured since they were instated way back in the day. None Zero. DOJ never ever tried to enforce the original version, and a revision was necessary? Pah leeese! The DOJ never even tried the first 2257 reg!

I know you poeple like to just disagree for the sake of disagreeing though...

No matter how feeble it is.

BTW, the 2nd thumb is mine ;)

I just didn't understand your "loss of freedom" part. That's all. And that's all I was trying to get at. So now you can't use any image you want in a design without having proper documentation for it -- yea, it's a fucking bitch. Where's the loss of freedom in that?

Granted, if you wanted to use images of my grandmother, in her current old-age physical likeness in your designs and you need to have docs proving she's over 18 -- yea, that's retarded. But if you're going to post comments about loss of freedom, at least throw some thought into them.

the law clearly states that the image has to show ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated of actual human beings?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

I would also believe that sperm swapping might fall into the above categories since to some it might be considered an actual depiction of sexual explicit conduct

if it needs to be 2257 compliant

So ya think surrounding the justification its worth...

A model exposing her/his identity to unnecessry folks is fair?
More detailed documentation that is unnecasarily redundant fair?
The 2257 Rules before were never even tested in the field?

Ya think that if I should get a wild hair up my ass take someones photos in an explicit matter use them in a creative composition requires documentation?
Justifiably in the process of creation I am now censored without the documentation not being lawfully permitted to create something for creations sake in artistic expression, whether or not I have the rights to use the content by the copyright holders.

I even change a photo by 20% I become exempt from requiring copyright permissions however I am now no longer permitted to implement the creative process without legal age verification of explicit content or subject matter.

I am censored.
Artists are censored.
Period.

The bottom line is this...

It's clear that the DOJ only has minimal interest in doing what is right to go after actual producers of child pornography.

Their real agenda, proof of which are these unconstitutional obscenity and record keeping laws (the original 2257 regs were sufficient), is to throw producers of LEGAL, albeit sexually explicit content, in jail. They know they can't throw us all in jail, but if they throw a few, it will make a number of us leave the business out of fear. This happened in the 80's with the Reagan administration.

Only the people can change this. We have to vote out every single politician that voted for the Patriot Act, which is all of them, none of them read the damn thing. It's a tall order and it may take decades, but it's the only way to do what is right and to protect our freedoms, which millions of Americans have died to preserve, and these piss ant politicians are treading all over.

The 2257 changes are an injustice and another indication that this administration is fascist and will even go so far as to trample the rights set forth in the Constitution in order to consolidate their power and attempt to control the public.

They want to be able to control what we read, watch and think.
Am I wrong?

FCC fines for indecency? Control the content of the public airwaves.
2257 and obscenity laws? Control sexually explicit speech.
What next?

Now they are collecting student information for recruitment efforts. That's not against the law?

Lets say I created a picture of Jenna Jameson sucking George Bushes cock in a photochop. Altered each photo, I alter the pic of Jenna over 20% and Bush over 20% but I would be not be permitted to publish the compositon legally.

My freedom is lost.