Just to clarify - that portion was for content producers from a foreign country that think they don't have to comply. The foreign producers have to comply if they are selling to anyone in the US or anyone whose company is registered in the US for billing purposes (even if they aren't in it - which in theory they should be).

Actually after second read, that section only covered pre existing photgraphs or negatives.

what a mess :2 cents:

And that is backed up by none other than REVENUE CANADA ( GST implementation ) .

Explicit and Actual
 

In the following section, point a2 suggests to me that full female nudity, and the publishing thereof by either a primary or secondary producer is exempt.

For example, if I have actually uploaded a gallery which contains ONLY a nude female posing and not sticking a dildo in her hole, then the gallery cannot even be described as simulated wanking?

:) - LOL - I had to laugh.

Ok, it has to stand true then - that the definition of "sexually explicit" has not been defined.

Is a pair of tits explicit? Is a fanny shot explicit? Is the fanny shot explicit - but youre ok cos its a "simulated fanny" shot - due to the fact it aint got a cock in it?

Whats explicit? Is posing with her arse in the air - alone - engaging in sexually explicit conduct? If not - then solo nowanks are fine yes?

This means that a large majority of banners are exempt - and also means - that as a tgp gallery poster - you may be able to get away with tit and fanny shots - which would be good for sales cos the hardcore stuff along with the documents is at the sponsor.

This is just my interpretation - do you guys think its a reasonable one?

For example again - one could perfectly legally - without maintaining documents, either as a primary or secondary producer - totally naked galleries of couples just pretending.

And if you can do that cos is simulated then FULL NUDITY AND LEG SPREADING ASS SHOTS are surely exempt if the woman is alone????

Any thoughts guys and girls?









Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

Hey,

By any chance someone has a french version?
Thanks

That's what i was thinking and would also like to know.
:helpme

i'm pretty sure that sexually explicit has been defined - it is not being redefined in 2257.

two lawyers explained to me that nudity is not sexually explicit IF there is no showing of genitals or anus, and there is no spreading of legs in a lacsivious manner. i suspect pinching nipples is also sexually explicit, or anything that looks like you would do it to incite lust, if ya see what i mean.

did you check this part out?

"(b) Picture identification card means a document issued by the
United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof,
or a United States territory, that bears the photograph and the name of
the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information
that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, such as a passport,
Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ``Green Card''), or other
employment authorization document issued by the United States, a
driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or
another form of identification issued by a State or the District of
Columbia; or, a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the
documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the
picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required
records are located outside the United States."

it appears to me - but i'm not a lawyer - that only if the model AND the producer are located outside the u.s. can foreign i.d. be used. of course, it doesn't say "only"... any thoughts?

:1orglaugh
Why in hell would the US have a FRENCH version ???

If they do a translation, it will be to spanish first ....

But you can always put all that mumbo-jimbo in babelfish: the outcome could be funny ....

*sigh*

The law defines what sexually explicit is....they were even nice enough to tell you in the regulations what portion of 18 USC section 2257 the definition was in.

I would just try to remain calm and wait for the injunction. It will come.

SShhhhhh.......I'm trying to beat the NATS error thread for longest of the week :winkwink:

whats the matter with the matter thats attatched to the matter of the subject matter?

It doesn't really matter :winkwink:

this is more reasonable and better than i thought.

it is doable.

and will separate the wheat from the chaff.

frankly, i breathe easier. piece of cake if you are a primary producer.

Here is a few highlights:

First off, third part custodian of record keepers are now SPECIFICALLY BANNED. You can not longer use a third party to store your materials, they must be at your place of business and your place of business MUST BE DEFINED BE REAL ADDRESS.

Second, as it appears they define model release by photoshoot or video taping (allowing one model release per session) it would appear that all of the images produced during that session are legally locked together. Thus, a softcore head and shoulder shot in a series of hardcore fucking images could be construed as a hardcore image as it is part of a single 2257 document. It is not clear that the head and shoulder shot could be used on a thumbtgp, example, and linked to hardcore material without there being an issue.

On the question of what is sexuallty explicit, the law has been there for a long time:

Thus, any spreads, or even shots that show the genital area could be considered sexually explicit.

If you operate a thumbtgp, I would suggest you start looking for an alternative starting June 23rd, 2005.

Alex

D) None of the above

This one should, and deserves to beat that for a while. In the meantime here is the best peice of advive I can give anyone:

YOU WEBMASTERS: STOP ARMCHAIR LAWYERING THIS TO DEATH. GET A LAWYER, TALK TO HIM, AND SEE HOW THIS EFFECTS YOU BUSINESS MODEL. IT WILL KEEP YOU FROM GOING INSANE LOOKING AT GFY EVERY 2 MINUTES!

Time for the shit to hit the fan.

I agree with this 100% (except the armchair lawyering part....watching the confederacy of dunces ask questions like "are text tgp's ok?" is hilarious)

But definitely hire an industry attorney, have them look over your site(s) and advise you on the best course of action.
Nobody from GFY is going to come defend you at your trial.

For 90% of the board it's far too late and happened a long time before the current 2257 drama. :upsidedow

Ok
 

Ok - if I put up a pic say last year, which I would now need the docs for - and I therefore now remove the pic cos there aint no way I can get hold of the docs - am I safe?

If so - I'll be taking some pics down im afraid - not many like some of you dudes may have to, but still theres some "cleaning up" I need to do.

If Im still not safe cos "I did it" then I may aswell leave them up no?

The net is going to be a much cleaner place - and thats what they wanted.

I hope those mainstream site designers are ready for us competing with them on the search engines

HO HO HO ;)

Poor bastards!!!!

Well if you don't have the doc then don't leave the pics up. Now these new rules don't take effect until June 23 so how can you be in violation NOW? You can't be busted for doing something that was legal at the time you were doing it.

WRONG.

The law has been effective since 1995.

The new stuff is just regulations specifying how the law will be enforced, the law itself hasn't changed.

I bet you're hating that wayback machine now aren't ya?

Hey it's fun armchair lawyering. Keeps your head in shape :upsidedow

Gator
 

To be honest - I wouldnt know if I could be busted for doing something when it was legal when it comes to american law. There was talk of it being "retrospective".

I suppose that means the 1995 bit - I see.

Can I believe this -

TEN FUCKING YEARS OF IMAGES WILL HAVE TO COME DOWN OFF THE NET

No, some of us have docs for every image we have on all of our sites, we won't have to take anything down.

So you are suggesting he leave the pics up?

I'm sure with all the CURRENT sites on the web they are going to go bother with some "way back" machine

Quit arguing with me for the sake of arguing. Until now he WAS NOT required to have the 2257 info ON HAND.

So you have every thumb and pic cross reference dwith every url they are on WITH detailed descriptions of sexual actions appearing in said pics?

lenny2: You might have paper for every image - but are you ready to go back an index EVERY page you have and cross reference each image to each document?

No matter who has what, very very few people are going to be totally compliant on this one.

Alex

Exactly. You have to have very specific descriptions of each pic and listed every url which they may appear,

Actually he was required to have the docs on hand according to the old regulations.
Just because this law was never enforced doesn't mean it wasn't still the law.

Now I happen to agree with the 10th circuit court who said that the secondary producer provisions in the regulations overreach the law, and in essence Justice is trying to rewrite the law the way they want it rather than enforcing the law that congress passed.

After reading the comments today from the DOJ they seem to have a totally different point of view and unless you have the money to mount a legal challenge against the DOJ I would strongly suggest following the regs to the letter.

Ok
 

That is correct - some of you will have all the docs - by definition producers must.

For many though - the statement stands firm and true - ten years work down the pan.

For instance - shouldnt producers holding documents now be issuing copies of these docs to ALL AFFILIATES who want them?

That would be a good thing for affiliates, and a good thing for producers.

Have any affiliates for example posted their requests off yet?

How about this - if the changes stand firm in the regs, then if you like - and it may be a good idea - I can write an online document distribution system.

Thats all we need - so that secondaries can reproduce hard copies at their own offices.

No big deal - it would take me about 6 days to code and would sort 99% of this mess out.

There is nothing in the law or the regs that requires a description of the sexual actions in the pictures.

As for having the docs indexed and whatnot, we have our shit together. We've been preparing for this for 11 months.

Even if the injunction falls flat, webmasters WILL have other options.

Any pages that have to be 2257 compliant will be taken down. I'm 100% positive that the government IF they go afer anyone at all( they have yet to go after ANYONE under the old regs in over a dozen years ) they will be going after WORKING WEBSITES not some webpage cached back in the nether regions of google.

Thanks for telling us what those other options are! :thumbsup

Where does it say you have to have cross referanced every image and video with every URL?

I'm 99% sure that the FSC will get an injunction.

The fact that the DOJ insisted on leaving in the secondary producer provision almost guarantees that IMHO.
All they have to do is walk into court and cite as precedent Reno V. Sundance where the 10th circuit said the Justice Dept was overreaching the law by trying to "create" two kinds of producers, when the law itself says there's only one.

To get an injunction you have to prove to the judge that you're likely to win the case......If I were a betting man I'd bet that's all the proof they'll need.

After the injunction is issued, it will be tied up in court for years regardless of who wins, because the other side will appeal.

That's my :2 cents:

I will hazzard a guess that this will mean that sponsors( at least US sponsors ) will stop handing out free content( at least to US webmasters ).