If a person runs his or her own site, with ONLY his or her own pictures, videos, (content), how do you think that person could comply or would they have to at all ?
Printable View
If a person runs his or her own site, with ONLY his or her own pictures, videos, (content), how do you think that person could comply or would they have to at all ?
A single model with his or her own site [or webcam] still needs to comply--according to the new regs you will be required to post your business address [likely your home] and yourself as the custodian of records. You will need to have copy of your own driver's license and a copy of every image you have ever published, plus a screen shot of your webpages [assuming you make regular changes] and you would be required to keep a copy of any video or streaming video you send out.
According to the new regs, you can NOT have someone else be your custodian of records, and you will have to have at least 20 hours a week as hours that your records will be open to review.
This stuff really sucks. Lets hope that saner heads prevail and the court system reels in the DOJ.
Chad,
Thank you for replying. Man, that is alot of stuff to worry about just for one solo site. I can't imagine how much manpower it would take on their end to enforce these rules. I don't see it getting that far, I think any judge in their right mind is going to see that this is utter b.s. but stranger things have happened.
That's the thing that violates a persons right to privacy IMO. The government forcing an individual to put his name, home address, and hours he will be home, on a worldwide porn site. If this is challenged in court and an injunction is granted.. will it only be granted to those who challenge it, or against the DOJ for all of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Thanks for your input Chad :high:
An injunction against enforcement would benefit everybody--law enforcment cannot enforce a law against some people but be prevented from enforcing it against a selected class [such as members of an organization].
However, all injunctions come to an end at some time. The last 2257 regs took nearly 3 years to work through all the court challenges, and when it was all over, the really stupid parts were taken out. Lets hope for the same result this time.
That's great to know! I'm all for following the law and doing the right thing and when regulations seem purposefully burdensome, or unreasonable, they should be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Thanks again for your input Chad, it's much appreciated :high:
The FSC web site says that only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. In this case FSC members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
The only other way to get around the new regs is to switch to a non-explicit format. Nudity isn't covered by 2257. It only applies to "actual sexually explicit conduct."
So what defines "sexually explicit conduct"? Is a guy standing with a boner explicit? Is a guy showing his ass considered explicit? This law considers masturbating sexual explicit but if it is a picture, how do they know he is masturbating and not just holding his boner if you can see movement?
(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
showing his ass but not spreading it might be non explicit, but holding his dick or playing with it would seem to me to fall into the above legal definition.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256Quote:
Originally Posted by Northstar
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
JINKX! :extat: :extat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Now..just define for me what "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" is? :extat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
las·civ·i·ous Pronunciation Key (l-sv-s)
adj.
1) Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2) Exciting sexual desires; salacious.
Example: Showing nudity to excite a surfer to click a link and signup for a porn site where sexual activity it displayed :francais:
Talk to your attorney.. now is not the time to be without one.
Adult entertainment lawyer Chad Belville, Esq
Chad Belville, Esq
4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Ste 515
Tempe, Arizona 85282
AZ Bar # 020771
IA Bar # 015731
Nat'l Dist. Attorneys Association # 3745
This is only partly correct. 2257 has its own definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct." It's derived from the 2256 definition, but it excludes simulated sex and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." So you can show any kind of nudity so long as it doesn't include masturbation, bestiality, S&M or a hardcore depiction of a sex act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
If the revised definition includes simulated sex and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" this would be great news for us all. Because then the mainstream entertainment industry would have to comply. Shows like Sex and the City, Deadwood, The Sopranos and Oz would have to be banned or censored for non-compliance. Movies like Monsters Ball and Fight Club would have to be censored. Celebrities would have to compromise their privacy rights. And the mainstream press would have to sit up and pay attention because then this would be a general censorship issue instead of a porn issue.
Can you please just quote the exact part of the regulations you're talking about and a link? ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
"(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;"
US CODE: Title 18,2257. Record keeping requirements
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
And based on that you feel "...you can show any kind of nudity so long as it doesn't include masturbation, bestiality, S&M or a hardcore depiction of a sex act." ? According to that logic anyone, of any age, can be shown full body with an erection or spread eagle showing the inside of their vagina... any age.. without documentation, and it's legal. That just doesn't sound right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Oh..I know what the word means..I'm talking about..say your example..showing nudity to excite a surfer to click a link and sign up.
Can't say, a guy in nothing but tight gym shorts or maybe someone just NUDE "excite" a surfer also?
This is just one of so many examples of how riddled these regs are and why I do believe so many of them are going to be thrown out and/or changed.
It's crazy. Did you read my A history of pornography and politics thread? It's amazing that the government seems to harrass us still after the courts continuouly back up our freedom of speech. Putting people in jail for misfiling information?.. that itself should be outlawed IMHO :extat:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Obviously, the models have to be of legal age, otherwise you'd be breaking other laws. But as far as 2257's record keeping requirements go, you're exempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Another source that backs up what I said:
"[FSC board member Jeffrey] Douglas then noted that the regulation only applies to images of sexually explicit conduct, and that nudity isn't covered by the regulations."
Source:
New 2257 Regs Dominate Free Speech Coalition Meeting
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=228369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
So what it is boiling down to almost is:
1)Even if they are of age, if you have sexual activity on your site, you better have your paperwork in order!
2)If it's nudity only, we don't really care about these regulations. Unless your model is "winking" to try to entice the surfer to "go inside." lol
Well that's the point... they don't know if you're breaking the law because you don't have ID's ... therefore you could have photos of models underage with erections and spread eagle showing their vaginas and you wouldn't have to prove they were over 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
The article you referenced also states: Douglas began by warning the audience that all industry attorneys were still in the process of digesting the new regulations, so that all answers given that evening should be followed by a mental asterisk that says "tentatively."Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
Thanks for you input. It's nice seeing other actively trying to find answers, and ways to comply, instead of hiding away or closing shop.
I personally have all docs for all models, and have since I started 6 years ago and even then the new regs are burdensome to an extent. But whatever the final outcome regarding the regs, I'll continue to follow things to a T to avoid fines, lawsuits and jailtime.
Do the new laws affect how you'll do business in the future? What are your plans?