Ok , give me some feedback...... What's the pros and cons of having a xxx tour or frontal nudity? , legal implications?? converts better? is your tour xxx or have frontal nudity?
Thanks All!
Printable View
Ok , give me some feedback...... What's the pros and cons of having a xxx tour or frontal nudity? , legal implications?? converts better? is your tour xxx or have frontal nudity?
Thanks All!
It all depends,i don't know much about it,still learning,but how i can see from people here...u need to show ppl enough but not too much on tour page:)
Enough to make them interesed and to sign up..
it all depends on u how will u make it...it is best to try and see how it goes,and then change until u find best solution,cheers:howl:
Depends on the niche of the site ultimately.Quote:
What's the pros and cons of having a xxx tour or frontal nudity?
Depends on your locale ultimately. You should ask a lawyer about that in your state as laws governing that vary s widely.Quote:
legal implications??
They probably arent the type of answers you were looking for but they are IMHO the right ones, especially #2 ;)
Regards,
Lee
Hey Lee -
What if the site has a disclosure page ( over 18 etc.. before showing frontal nudity
No idea im not a lawyer ;)Quote:
Originally posted by edk
What if the site has a disclosure page ( over 18 etc.. before showing frontal nudity
As i said i dont know the laws in your state and i know even less about the laws in Florida.. thats our lawyers job, we just do as she tells us ;)
Regards,
Lee
Anyone Know the answer to this!! Bueller...Bueller:high:
no lawyer knows, because so far there have been no convictions of porn sites based on just vanilla porn.
So if a webmaster was charged with obscenity he wouldn't know if he committed a crime or not until the jury reached a verdict.
My lawyer told me to stay away from using the word boy or teen or any connotation of that, and to use models who are clearly in their 20s or over.
But he couldn't give me clear advice on what the legal implications are of showing hardcore penetration, cumshots, etc because theres no precedence.
theres an article on it here:
http://www.firstamendment.com/pubs_t...-03-30-01.php3
"You Don't Know Whether You're Guilty Until the Jury Renders Its Verdict"
If I personally were doing a tour Id do only non-nude models, because my non-nude ads convert better than my xxx ads, but other people might disagree.
xxx or full nude tours sell better for me every time without fail - in every niche. with some niches, it's hard to imagine selling memberships easily without showing dick - like uncut cocks or big dick. it's all about your marketing, but i always sell products better by giving a taste.
showing minors things deemed harmful can get you up to twenty years if you're in the u.s.
a warning page has no legal validity - no law includes its use, and many minors have clicked those enter links. it doesn't stop them.
lawrence walter's verification script may hold more weight. it is made for his clients, but i believe you can license it.
i can tell you this - there is no 100% right answer.
if you're unsure about these things, talk to a lawyer - not just ANY lawyer, but one who is active in our business.
Great. Thanks BassChick & Marc this is what I was looking for ... :high:
Eddie,
Nice avator pic, bud. I can join basschick's support of the xxx tour.
Its about the right balance of titilation...plenty of teasing pics that get progressively hotter then one or two very strategically placed ultra hots pics as they get to the join page. Show wem enough to get em hot...but not ewnough to get them off.
A warning page has no true validity as basschick said and there are no legal precidents. Our lawyer encourades us to use one however, placing the enter after the disclamer to show intent on our part to do what you can. Once inside, if you have too much hardcore of full nudity on the fornt page of your tour, that gives you little room to raise bar as you get closer to the join page. Often softcore banners can pull the hits, but we've found you need to give them a little sample to make them take out their wallets but no so much they talk out their schlongs!
Have a great Thanksigivng.
Harlan
Greetings:
I think you are confusing the issues involved here a bit.Quote:
Originally posted by Marc
no lawyer knows, because so far there have been no convictions of porn sites based on just vanilla porn.
So if a webmaster was charged with obscenity he wouldn't know if he committed a crime or not until the jury reached a verdict.
Keep in mind I'm not an attorney either, and the following is simply based on my conversations with actual attorneys, and with those involved in the industry:
The concern with having XXX in a site tour isn't one of obscenity. The obscenity concern exists no matter where the images are located, including within your password protected member's area. Obscenity is obscenity no matter where/how you're distributing it (at least, that's the government's current position, I think we're going to see some interesting rulings regarding that in the Extreme Associates case).
The issue with putting XXX in your site tour is an issue of distributing pornography to minors. This is why many webmasters will not include such materials outside of a protected member's area.
Originally, COPPA dictated that a credit card, or other similar protection, be required for access to XXX. However, the Supreme Court overturned that, saying that the government must require the least intrusive forms of protection, so as not to put undue hardship on the free speech rights of adults.
This leaves a big black void right now. What exactly is "reasonable efforts of protection" that an adult webmaster must undertake to prevent children from accessing pornography? No one knows, because the courts have never ruled on it.
From what I've read of cases that Larry Walters has handled, he says he's finding it VERY difficult to convince a judge that a simple warning splash page with a don't enter unless 18+ button is reasonable protection. This is why he says he came up with the "birthdate verifier" (which, by the way, I found out you can't buy, but must lease, from him at a cost of $70 / month). Basically it's a splash page with some extra legal mumbojumbo plastered on it.
So, who knows. Apparently no one, including those that wrote the laws, which seems to be a common trend when it comes to laws related to our industry....
As someone that has a infosec background, I can say there really is only one technical mechanism that exists to block out children, and that's filtering software. So, at the very least, I would think you should be doing everything possible to make your site filter-friendly. Including:
1. Using the universal "adult" metatag:
META name="Voluntary Content Rating" CONTENT="adult"
2. Labeling your site with ICRA's metatags:
http://www.icra.org/
3. Setting up your robots.txt file to disallow search engines to index anything except your main warning page (kind of hard to argue the validity of your warning page if you're allowing search engines to index everything past it).
4. Setting up an .htaccess file to stop third-parties from hotlinking your pornographic content (most do this anyway for bandwidth reasons, but from a technical perspective I'd also think it would play under the "reasonable measures").
5. Registering your site with the major filters including SurfControl and CyberPatrol.
Is all of that enough? I don't know, but as a court certified expert in the areas of information security and data integrity, I could testify that I know of no other technology that currently exists to control access of materials to minors, short of requiring legal adults to submit to the undue hardship of entering credit card information or faxing in copies of driver's licenses (and even then there's no way to prove a minor simply isn't using someone else's cc/id).
I hope the courts eventually realize that such data control is not practical on the server side of things, and that the responsibility MUST take place on the client end. In other words, it's VERY difficult from a technical perspective for us the webmaster, to do content control, but VERY easy for a properly motivated parent to do so.
Perhaps the laws would be more effective if they were rewritten to say that PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS must provide reasonable protections ON THEIR COMPUTERS to insure that their children can't access pornographic materials?
And what good is a warning page when a surfer can really enter your site from any page that Google (or another search engine) has indexed? Search engines send the traffic to the page that got the results, not the site's entry or warning page.
I think to use the "we had a warning page" defense, you would probably have to set up an "no index, no follow" meta tag on all of your pages to make sure that the search engines only indexed your warning page. Then you might have a leg to stand on because you were truly trying to send all traffic through a warning page. But so what? Nothing compels people to be honest on a warning page.
Cheers
Dzinerbear
oh warning pages, Lawrence Walters has a warning page that makes it sound like youre breaking the law if you ignore the warning, and it also makes it difficult to bypass because you actually have to stop and fill out a form befire entering.
http://www.birthdateverifier.com/
you can see an example of it here.
http://birthdateverifier.com/php/form.html
I think its around $150, not sure. I like it because its written by an attorney. I know zilch about the law, but in court I could say "I did eveything I could, and hired an attorney to tell me what to do".
I think a jury would see you did what was reasonable to keep people out who dont want to be there.
Marc - you can only claim you are doing everything you can if you block the rest of your site using .htaccess so people can't enter from search engine links.
And from a sales rather than legal perspective - Hard sells better.
In my experiences anyway.
Just don't give away the money shot.