Just wondering. Do we just document as usual ?
C.
Printable View
Just wondering. Do we just document as usual ?
C.
it would definitely be considered sexual in nature so YES!!!
I would think they would have to be matched up to the model and the associated model ID just like any other photograph.
Yes, that is true. That is also what makes it hard for those doing free sites with "mixed" sets in their sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by tombarr
Under 2257, a dick-only shot, if the guy isn't touching his dick, would probably be exempt, since in the correspondence between Justice and FSC, the Justice attorney stipulated that an erection only would not be explicit, and therefore not subject to 2257.
However, 4472 appears to make mere nudity subject to regulation. So content produced or published (not sure which) after the date at which 4472 goes into effect will most likely be subject to 2257 recordkeeping requirements.
Quote:
I would think they would have to be matched up to the model and the associated model ID just like any other photograph.
LOL i just had a vision of an FBI agent holding a pic of the models ID and a pic of the dick shot going " How do i KNOW this is really his cock?"
This is assuming you are taking the stance that a few of the big lawyers are saying in that it applies to content after that date. It is not specifically stated in 4472 that that is in fact the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
My only input is DOCUMENT ALL OF THE CONTENT ON YOUR ADULT SITE :french:
My understanding is that one cannot enact a law that requires specific actions *before* the law was passed, so if that's true, it's unlikely that Justice would try to enforce the regulations on content that was "published" before the law took effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by realtoughbear
The catch is what "published" means... and there was a lot of discussion about that on one of the legal panels a year or so ago when the new 2257 regs were being discussed.
However, if you're being conservative, it's wise to assume that all content, regardless of publication date, should be compliant until the justice department indicates otherwise.
i think it would be extremely easy for law enforcement or a judge - or most people - to consider a hard cock a lascivious exhibition of genitals. i'd say yes, 2257 applies. a soft cock could be different but i wouldn't count on it. remember, any law is subject to interpretation.
on this site: how is he going to get 2257 info? people email them pics and text
http://www.abadboy.com/amateur/index.htm
Is a picpost 2257 / 4472 required, too?
Hi. This is my first post on GWW -- hope I'm not being too nerdy or breaking any rules here. I'm not gay but everyone thinks I am. . . but seriously, I'm a lawyer working on 2257 compliance with a number of gay sites.
PENISES
On the question of penises, yes, I would say you are somewhere in the "probably" part of danger territory with a flaccid penis. Ask your own lawyer but when in doubt, best to comply.
4472 added "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" to the list of 2256 content that falls under 2257. There are no cases interpreting 2256 in the context of 2257 but there are a number of cases in the context of substantive laws against child porn.
The common-sense rule is that if it the picture is illegal if you know the person is underage, you have to keep records to prove that they aren't. That is NOT the legal standard, but a convenient way of looking at things.
The legal standard followed by most courts is from US v. Dost, a balancing test with six non-exhaustive factors:
(1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
(2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
(3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
(4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
(5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
(6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
Substitute "performer" for "child" in the Dost test above, and I think that's the reading a court would give to 2257.
I've seen opinions all over the place as to when the recordkeeping date starts for "lascivious display" -- back to 1995, 4472's passage last month, or after any new regulations come out. I won't get into the arguments but the government could try to apply this back to 1995 on the claim that you should have been keeping the records all along. At any rate, if you haven't started, start keeping records now.
PICPOSTS
Picposts and other user submitted content is a real problem under 2257. Either the website owner is the primary producer, or the amateur who submits the content is a primary producer and the owner is a secondary. There's a very narrow exception (2257(h)(2)(B)(v)) for "hosting" content "without slection or alteration." The current batch of regulations has a similar exception for "a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service." Regulations cannot exceed their statutory authority, so the exceptions are cumulative (hope that makes sense).
It seems dangerous to run a site that relies on the exceptions as a reason for not complying, at least not without a lot of thought and advice from an attorney. Moreover, even if the site itself is exempt, the users who submit content appear to be primary producers.