Serious question regarding 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

kernelpanic · 06-09-2005, 08:31 PM

Yes, I have read the regulations.

If a sponsor provides free content, and it happens to contain "sexually explicit" images, can the non-explicit images be used without having to comply under 2257?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html

Quote:

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

Judging from the law, it seems that if one uses only non-nude or softcore content from a set which contains hardcore, then that content is exempt from 2257 regulations.

I'm asking an attorney about this, but in the meantime, I'd like to know if anyone on GFY has had similar experience with this.

kernelpanic · 06-09-2005, 08:39 PM

bump

5678

fusionx · 06-09-2005, 08:46 PM

Anything you publish that does not contain actual sexually explicit content is not required to be documented under 2257.

People keep saying that you can not crop a headshot or a softcore shot from an image that contains actual sexually explicit content. I'd like someone to show me where it says this, either in the new 2257 regs themselves, or in the comments concerning the regs.

I know you can not censor the image, by pixelating or covering parts of the image with a black bar, etc. But, I can't find a single thing that says you can not crop a new image from the existing.

If anyone can, please post a link or quote something that indicates this.

kernelpanic · 06-09-2005, 08:58 PM

I remember quite a few people posting that their attorney had advised against cropping hardcore images and then using them without proper docs. I thought the same precedent might apply to non-hardcore images from a hardcore set in some twisted way.

ULVideo · 06-09-2005, 08:59 PM

Isn't that the old/current 2257 you linked to, not the one which is about to be slung at us?

kernelpanic · 06-09-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULVideo

Isn't that the old/current 2257 you linked to, not the one which is about to be slung at us?

Yeah, my bad.

I read the 2005 one last night when thinking about this.

06-09-2005, 08:39 PM	#2
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	bump 5678 __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-09-2005, 08:58 PM	#4
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	I remember quite a few people posting that their attorney had advised against cropping hardcore images and then using them without proper docs. I thought the same precedent might apply to non-hardcore images from a hardcore set in some twisted way. __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-09-2005, 08:46 PM	#3
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	Anything you publish that does not contain actual sexually explicit content is not required to be documented under 2257. People keep saying that you can not crop a headshot or a softcore shot from an image that contains actual sexually explicit content. I'd like someone to show me where it says this, either in the new 2257 regs themselves, or in the comments concerning the regs. I know you can not censor the image, by pixelating or covering parts of the image with a black bar, etc. But, I can't find a single thing that says you can not crop a new image from the existing. If anyone can, please post a link or quote something that indicates this.

06-09-2005, 08:59 PM	#5
ULVideo Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New York Posts: 405	Isn't that the old/current 2257 you linked to, not the one which is about to be slung at us?