Are facial images exempt from 2257? - GoFuckYourself.com

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 06:19 PM

Are facial/cumshot/bukkake images exempt from the proposed 2257 changes so long as there's no genitilia visible in the images or movies?

Apollo · 08-31-2004, 06:25 PM

I've still got my lawyer researching this for me but from how I understand it...the new proposed law would only be necessary for hardcore images.

While what "hardcore" is decided upon by the courts I don't know yet...but I'd say face shots or any shot not actually showing nudity would be exempt. Facial shots (assuming the cock isn't being shown) may or may not be considered hardcore...after all, one would need to prove it's cum on the face in the first place =)

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 06:53 PM

this brings up a bunch of questions:

what about softcore?

what about nude?

what if the girl is nude and masturbating?

what about simulated sex?

freeadultcontent · 08-31-2004, 06:54 PM

see lawyer.
pay lawyer.
have lawyer explain sexualy explicit.

clickhappy · 08-31-2004, 07:00 PM

cum dripping off a face about the most sexually explicit you can get.

Just look at the cambria list.

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:00 PM

I'd rather read the damn thing myself than pay someone else to pretend to know what they're talking about

freeadultcontent · 08-31-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurFlix
I'd rather read the damn thing myself than pay someone else to pretend to know what they're talking about

Then read it and do not ask such easy questions here.

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:08 PM

got a link?

all I keep finding is the current one

Dirty Dane · 08-31-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
see lawyer.
pay lawyer.
have lawyer explain sexualy explicit.

that's really sad - adult webmasters running to a lawyer for sexual explicit definitions

European Lee · 08-31-2004, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurFlix
I'd rather read the damn thing myself than pay someone else to pretend to know what they're talking about

Yet you would rather post on GFY for legal information first

Regards,

Lee

freeadultcontent · 08-31-2004, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Dane
that's really sad - adult webmasters running to a lawyer for sexual explicit definitions

No what is really sad is those in this profession who call themselves adult webmaster's yet do not even have a base understanding of this shit before they get envolved.

FlyingIguana · 08-31-2004, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
see lawyer.
pay lawyer.
have lawyer explain sexualy explicit.

the question is, would the lawyer even know? actually could vary from state to state what sexually explicit means

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:33 PM

Actually I was hoping someone would post a link to the proposed 2257 changes.

I've found it posted a few places, but nothing on a government website.

was posted all over the place a few weeks ago... now that I'm looking for it... no where to be found

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
No what is really sad is those in this profession who call themselves adult webmaster's yet do not even have a base understanding of this shit before they get envolved.

You are a fussy little thing aren't you?

BTW, the word is spelled 'involved' not 'envolved'.

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
the question is, would the lawyer even know?

exactly

my guess is there's a handful of very highly priced lawyers in the country that are knowledgeable enough about this to give any kind of legitimate advice

freeadultcontent · 08-31-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurFlix
You are a fussy little thing aren't you?

BTW, the word is spelled 'involved' not 'envolved'.

I make spelling mistakes often. It is why I use a spell checker on documents that are important. I also use a lawyer for things that are important.

BTW, that first comment was not directed at you.

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
BTW, that first comment was not directed at you.

Then you have my apologies.

freeadultcontent · 08-31-2004, 07:42 PM

Ok lets keep this simple.

You will not find the new 2257 rules up on any government website. They are still proposed. The cut off date was for public comment. We are still under the current 2257 rules and will be until the proposed ones take effect, assuming they do without additional changes, and additional public comments.

The current 2257 rules clearly define what is sexually explicit.

studio · 08-31-2004, 07:43 PM

The sad thing is at least 80% of all adult sites don't comply correctly with 2257 as they stands now, let along if and when the new regs are passed and take affect. The feds could file charges on hundreds if not thousands of webmasters tomorrow if they had the man power.

A lot more money should be spent by webmasters on education of the governmental regs.

421Fill · 08-31-2004, 08:01 PM

magicmike · 08-31-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by studio
The sad thing is at least 80% of all adult sites don't comply correctly with 2257 as they stands now, let along if and when the new regs are passed and take affect. The feds could file charges on hundreds if not thousands of webmasters tomorrow if they had the man power.

A lot more money should be spent by webmasters on education of the governmental regs.

Not all websites are US based either.

I imagine if your not in the US and not running paysites you wouldn't be as worried.

studio · 08-31-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Not all websites are US based either.

Living outside the boarders does have advantages, but many US based sites simply don't comply. I don't care, it's just a fact.

It makes me sleep better at night knowing if big brother launches the long talked about attack on the adult industry. I will not be easy picking for them. They will have their hands full with all that are clearly not complying. They will pick them off first like cannon fodder.

Paul Markham · 08-31-2004, 08:20 PM

Think about it like this.

If you were in court argueing whether Facials were explicit or not, which side would you want to be on?

A lawyer will tell you to get the documents, they would have told you to get the documents this time last year. Lawyers try to keep their clients out of jail, it's their job.

Jimatcohf · 08-31-2004, 08:20 PM

dont know about the rest of you, but we here at cohf are fully 2257 compliant, we keep models records from day one, Guys if you shoot your own content, its your fault if you are not compliant. we dont take pic one without a 2257. These new regs are going to screw with the affiliates for sure but for the sites that shoot exclusive content we should be ok

Dirty Dane · 08-31-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Dane
that's really sad - adult webmasters running to a lawyer for sexual explicit definitions

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
No what is really sad is those in this profession who call themselves adult webmaster's yet do not even have a base understanding of this shit before they get envolved.

What I'm talking about is not the webmasters, but the situation that US politicians/lawmakers has brought.

I understand that people are afraid of going to jail, but it's more a question about morality and not only laws, right?
The hole point is to avoid exploiting minors. If bukkake pics are exceptions from the 2257 proposal, does that mean that it is ok to show minors in bukkake pics, just because it is "legal"?
From what I see it does not need much sense to understand that 18+ is ok, and 18- is not ok. If people do not have that morality, well, let those people take that risk....
....you do not to nuke 2 big cities, just to hit some few people....THAT is sad

AmateurFlix · 08-31-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimatcohf
dont know about the rest of you, but we here at cohf are fully 2257 compliant, we keep models records from day one, Guys if you shoot your own content, its your fault if you are not compliant. we dont take pic one without a 2257. These new regs are going to screw with the affiliates for sure but for the sites that shoot exclusive content we should be ok

That's kind of my point, or at least a part of it... I just signed up for facialcash the other day. It's going to be more difficult to promote a site that's based on facials if I can't show a facial in the ads. I doubt you guys are going to supply ID's & model releases to your affiliates (maybe I'm wrong?)

Just trying to prepare for next month; I'd hate to build up an ad structure just to tear it down in a month or so.

baddog · 09-01-2004, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurFlix
this brings up a bunch of questions:

what about softcore?

what about nude?

what if the girl is nude and masturbating?

what about simulated sex?

yes
yes
no
no

baddog · 09-01-2004, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurFlix
Actually I was hoping someone would post a link to the proposed 2257 changes.

I've found it posted a few places, but nothing on a government website.

was posted all over the place a few weeks ago... now that I'm looking for it... no where to be found

the govt site I used to go to is now down . . . . this is even better though

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm

08-31-2004, 06:19 PM	#1
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	Are facial images exempt from 2257? Are facial/cumshot/bukkake images exempt from the proposed 2257 changes so long as there's no genitilia visible in the images or movies? __________________

08-31-2004, 06:25 PM	#2
Apollo Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 433	I've still got my lawyer researching this for me but from how I understand it...the new proposed law would only be necessary for hardcore images. While what "hardcore" is decided upon by the courts I don't know yet...but I'd say face shots or any shot not actually showing nudity would be exempt. Facial shots (assuming the cock isn't being shown) may or may not be considered hardcore...after all, one would need to prove it's cum on the face in the first place =) __________________ ----------- Free automated way to rotate sponsor gallery thumbnails on your sites TgpWizards - Free TGP Gallery submission system

08-31-2004, 06:53 PM	#3
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	this brings up a bunch of questions: what about softcore? what about nude? what if the girl is nude and masturbating? what about simulated sex? __________________

08-31-2004, 06:54 PM	#4
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	see lawyer. pay lawyer. have lawyer explain sexualy explicit. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

08-31-2004, 07:00 PM	#6
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	I'd rather read the damn thing myself than pay someone else to pretend to know what they're talking about __________________

08-31-2004, 07:00 PM	#5
clickhappy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,027	cum dripping off a face about the most sexually explicit you can get. Just look at the cambria list.

08-31-2004, 07:08 PM	#8
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	got a link? all I keep finding is the current one __________________

08-31-2004, 07:33 PM	#13
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	Actually I was hoping someone would post a link to the proposed 2257 changes. I've found it posted a few places, but nothing on a government website. was posted all over the place a few weeks ago... now that I'm looking for it... no where to be found __________________

08-31-2004, 07:42 PM	#18
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Ok lets keep this simple. You will not find the new 2257 rules up on any government website. They are still proposed. The cut off date was for public comment. We are still under the current 2257 rules and will be until the proposed ones take effect, assuming they do without additional changes, and additional public comments. The current 2257 rules clearly define what is sexually explicit. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

08-31-2004, 07:43 PM	#19
studio Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oshkosh, WI ICQ #251860879 Posts: 1,095	The sad thing is at least 80% of all adult sites don't comply correctly with 2257 as they stands now, let along if and when the new regs are passed and take affect. The feds could file charges on hundreds if not thousands of webmasters tomorrow if they had the man power. A lot more money should be spent by webmasters on education of the governmental regs. __________________

08-31-2004, 08:01 PM	#20
421Fill Super Mario Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Swenson's Avatar Posts: 19,422	lol __________________ RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!!!

08-31-2004, 08:20 PM	#23
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Think about it like this. If you were in court argueing whether Facials were explicit or not, which side would you want to be on? A lawyer will tell you to get the documents, they would have told you to get the documents this time last year. Lawyers try to keep their clients out of jail, it's their job. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

08-31-2004, 08:20 PM	#24
Jimatcohf Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: south east Posts: 277	dont know about the rest of you, but we here at cohf are fully 2257 compliant, we keep models records from day one, Guys if you shoot your own content, its your fault if you are not compliant. we dont take pic one without a 2257. These new regs are going to screw with the affiliates for sure but for the sites that shoot exclusive content we should be ok __________________ [email protected] ICQ: 318490299