US Biz, 2257 Btm Line

[GLBTcity]

Hi all,

I would like to share the "short & sweet" with you as told to us by our attorney. DO NOT take this as "word" however. But it should help to clear up a lot of speculation.

Pertaining to US Biz and Adult sites only.

If you have "on your site" any image that depict sexually explicit images, YOU are obligated to comply with 2257 and keep ALL records necessary under the law and filed EXACTLY as specified by the law. If you don't, you are in violation of the law and the law stipulates a mandatory 5 years imprisonment.

Sexually explicit images:

1. Any image that shows penetration of the anus and oral.

2. Any image of man or woman I suppose (we're a totally gay site) that portrays masturbation.

3. A man holding his gen's and/or penis. It is still a gray area if he is holding his flacid penis. Just don't push... it's better if you have an image where he isn't touching himself at all.

Here's the "pisser" !!!

You CANNOT simply put the "black dot" over the explicit portion of the image any longer. That IS NOT acceptable. You cannot alter the image in any fashion to "cover" the penetration or a man masturbating. Nope, No How, Now Way, No Fashion. This will be in violation of the law "period" if you don't have the records on file "in-house" as required under 2257.

The ONLY way to get around 2257 is to have "softcore" images displayed on your site. These are deemed as simply "nudity" which has nothing to do with 2257. BUT... be warned, make sure that they are nothing more than nudity. A guy sitting back with a raging "hardon" (NOT TOUCHING IT) is acceptable.

Again, I want to emphasize "on your site".

Take us for example:

a) We sell movies from multiple studio/producers.

b) We can have all the softcore images we want on our site and not be in violation of 2257.

c) We can put links to the studio/producers website that says:

"To see Hardcore images from this movie, click here"

and the link take the customer to the studio/producer website. We are not liable and/or responsible to keep records. The studio IF they have explicit images on their site IS, not us.

d) We currently have a small live cam type link on our website(s) that is provided by AEBN with our affiliate program. This little cam 1"x1" shows scenes from the actual video which includes penetration, masturbation, yada yada...

GUESS WHAT? WE are responsible to have the records for EVERY actor in EVERY video that is shown in that little 1"x1" cam shot on our site.

The FIX...

Get rid of the little cam shot and put a simple text link in that says "FREE DAILY VIDEO" Click Here.

IF the link takes you to another website, then it is no longer your responsibility, but rather the owners' responsibility of the actual site that the images and/or VOD resides on.

The law is very CUT & DRY about the explicit images. It's all the rest of the garbage (land mines) that are included that the Free Speech Coalition and attorney's are fighting.

I would suggest to all US Biz owners to visit the FSC website http://www.freespeechcoalition.com and read up on what's happening. Even better, it would be a GOOD IDEA if you become a member.

WHY? If the FSC is successful in getting an injunction and YOU are a member, you are protected. The organization extends many benefits to its members and you're never playing the "guessing games".

[basschick]

thanks for the post. this pretty much goes along with what the attorneys i talked to said with one exception - the raging hardon could be construed as lascivious, as would showing any pink in the case of female models.

[GLBTcity]

thanks for the post. this pretty much goes along with what the attorneys i talked to said with one exception - the raging hardon could be construed as lascivious, as would showing any pink in the case of female models.

But still only nudity Basschick. It's all in how the viewer wants to interpret it as I was explained.

It's a gray area, but one that can be beat in a court of law.

Just so he isn't touching it.

PB

[GLBTcity]

I just wanted to add to my previous post...

Be careful, be forewarned...

Some box covers will be subject to 2257 as they depict penetration, masturbation, etc.

So those box covers are out of the question as well.

PB

[GLBTcity]

whoops... I forgot to mention this,

You CANNOT simply crop the photo either. That was my first question when told about the images.

I said, "No problem, I'll just crop off the photo above his waist"... Nope, Nada, That Didn't Fly!!!

So don't think you're safe by just cropping a photo and you're in compliance. That just won't fly!

The photo must contain "full body", head to toe, with or without a hardon, no touching him/herself in any fashion (to be safe) to qualify as simply "nudity".

Otherwise, your cropped photo that you thought would make you safe.... just got you 5 years in prison.

PB

[GLBTcity]

Sorry... but I keep going back to my notes and documentation and seeing other little bits that I left out.

Here's one for some of you...

You know that little paragraph that you have posted on your entrance page that reads something along these lines:

" I certify that I am not a City, State, or Federal Law Enforcement Officer, nor am I an Inspector or Official of the U.S. Postal Service. "

You better GET RID OF IT!!! It can be used against you in a court of law as an "admission of guilt".

PB

[Squirt]

I would suggest to all US Biz owners to visit the FSC website http://www.freespeechcoalition.com and read up on what's happening. Even better, it would be a GOOD IDEA if you become a member.

WHY? If the FSC is successful in getting an injunction and YOU are a member, you are protected. The organization extends many benefits to its members and you're never playing the "guessing games".

First off... thank you so much for going through the time and effort with your previous posts about what you've learned, it's greatly appreciated. Thank you.

In regards to the quote above... this is a partial quote from Tom Hymes of the FSC on another board:

"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that “being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).” "

[IntenseCash.com]

thanks for the informative post.

Mark

[tombarr]

so if i crop a photo of a naked man and put it on a website, how does the law know that it is the original format of the image? how does the law know i did not obtain the image cropped? so using this theory, posting shirtless men falls under 2257 also as we would not know if the photos were originals, or digitally altered as in cropping?

[basschick]

they could have seen it before - remember, whoever enforced this will see porn EVERY day. common stuff, they'll come to know.

also if you use that set anywhere else and show the i.d. for it, they may recognize it from the other page.

probably they won't recognize it at all, but if that's your freedom you're gambling with. why not just buy a legitimately non sexually explicit set and take the gamble out of the equation?

GLBTcity - it IS how the viewer interprets it. but the judge who makes the decision in your case will also be an interpreting viewer, and he/she may be a hardcore christian who won't have a pic of classic statues from greece in his house or office.

so if i crop a photo of a naked man and put it on a website, how does the law know that it is the original format of the image? how does the law know i did not obtain the image cropped? so using this theory, posting shirtless men falls under 2257 also as we would not know if the photos were originals, or digitally altered as in cropping?

[GLBTcity]

GLBTcity - it IS how the viewer interprets it. but the judge who makes the decision in your case will also be an interpreting viewer, and he/she may be a hardcore christian who won't have a pic of classic statues from greece in his house or office.

Good point basschick

It's very much a gray area. Again, it's going to be up to the person/owner of the site.... do they want to take that risk? Me personally and from my partner's stand point, we don't!

Here's another point that we brought up to one of our studios that we sell. At first, they said that their attorney said they were completely in compliance. I was quite frustrated because I knew they weren't and I don't want to see them go down.... here's a new catch regarding box covers and explicit images:

The law now states that any box cover with explicit images MUST contain the contact persons name as well as the address of the custodian of records.

The name can be in full or be first name initial and last name. BUT, MUST be included on the box cover (DVD insert, etc).

If not, then it is a felony to sell and/or distribute because it is not compliant with 2257.

I explained this to them on the phone. They said that wasn't what their attorney said.

We found the article that contained this new regulation and emailed the link and copy/paste the paragraph in the email as well.

I no sooner hit SEND, I picked up the phone to call and they were calling me on the other line to say "oops"... their attorney had just confirmed what I was trying to tell them earlier. ppppphhhheeeeeewwwwww

We sell more of their videos/dvds than any others on our site and we certainly were concerned because if we were to sell one of their movies after the 23rd and it was intercepted by law officials, we would be looking at 5 years.

Again, I can't emphasize it enough... the law is VERY SPECIFIC on explicit images be it on websites or on box covers. And what about these same box covers in Retail Stores? I hope they too are looking at their inventory.

I surely hope that people are taking this seriously and making all the necessary changes... one way or the other.

PapaBear

[Fister]

thanks for the post. this pretty much goes along with what the attorneys i talked to said with one exception - the raging hardon could be construed as lascivious, as would showing any pink in the case of female models.

"Lascivious exhibition..." is excluded from 2257 record-keeping requirements as it is not included in the definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct". 18USC2257 paragraph (h) states "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;" "Lascivious exhibition..." is subparagraph 2(E) of 2256. So if you have a model alone, 2257 applies for masturbation or masochistic abuse. I suppose any solo touching genitalia could be construed as masturbation.

[MiamiB]

Fuck them...I am a photographer and part of what I do as an artist is to crop and image prior to the final effect (i.e. the photo that is shown as finished) be that in the camera prior to pushing the trigger OR after in the dark room (digital or phyisical). That is how the images are created for those of you who only resell what we create...therefore, no one can read my mind as to what I was seeing prior to the creation of the image (was that shirtless man naked with a hard cock or in boxers...hummm...perverted minds like mine in the DOJ want to know)!!

PLEASE...it is obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain that this 2257 bullshit is only around to hurt erotic artists and those in the adult industry in the USA and make it harder for us to work and to express ourselves (yes, as horrible as it might seem to those God fearing DOJ assholes...sexuallity is a part of what drives art and creativity)!! OMG!!

Lee