2257 question

[IdolKnights]

If I produce animation stills – Do I need to have my ID attached to the sets as the Art producer to show the art was made by someone 18+?

Where does art stand in the war on porn and the whole 2257 rule?

Also, looking around, I see a lot of art that looks like someone just ran the stamp effect on a photo in photoshop. Does that need the 2257 of the photo used to make the art?

[Lee]

From what i understand and, im by no means an attorney, original artwork doesnt currently require 2257 documentation UNLESS that artwork was created from an 'actual' human being, such as running a regular porn photo through a set of photoshop filters to give it a 'toon' look.

Im sure Chad will be able to post a little more info on this for you though.

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

Not a lawyer, but you might want to start checking out the new law 4457 as it supposedly does have something about suggested sex by art in it and does alter the secondary producer requirements... just my opinion but i'd check

[IdolKnights]

4457 Link? Google didn't seem to pull anything up for me.

[marcjacob]

Until you find out for sure, i would display the required info. You have proof that your over 18 on file.

[3x-help]

i have another question that runs along with this. as we are based in europe and will start a new content shop soon, we would need to know, if it is enough we provide the ID along with the sets plus the address info of our companyto where the releases and original models contract infos are based (keeper of records)?

[gaybucks_chip]

Here's a link to 4472

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4472

but you'll have to have a copy of 2257 handy,

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html

as most of 4472 just references language in 2257. 4472 is one of the most poorly written bills I've ever seen, this is clearly language somebody just pasted in at the last minute.

[IdolKnights]

2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

``(a) IN GENERAL.--Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

``(b) MINORS.--Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

``(c) CONSTRUCTION.--For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

``(d) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section--

``(1) the terms `material that is harmful to minors' and `sex' have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B;

and

``(2) the term `source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.''.

[IdolKnights]

So the words "Cartoon" "Animation" and so on... could fall into words used to get kids to the site?

Less it has GAY SEX Cartoons and GAY PORN Cartoons?

[basschick]

this is pretty much untested ground but my interpretation (and i'm not a lawyer) would be yes - absolutely.

as far as I.D., are your pics taken even slightly from photos or models? if so, and they are sexually explicit, i'm told you are supposed to have the I.D. of those models the same way as pics.

So the words "Cartoon" "Animation" and so on... could fall into words used to get kids to the site?

Less it has GAY SEX Cartoons and GAY PORN Cartoons?

[IdolKnights]

are your pics taken even slightly from photos or models?

To get the form - yes - But not a digital trace.

Just used in the classic form of Reference to pose and action for hand drawn lines. Like in an Art class - you have a nude person in the room but you draw what you see. Well the same. I look at a photo ref and draw what I see.

I guess I could dumb down the art so it looks less like life art and more like Saturday morning GI Joe or something Mun-Chi-Chi'esq

I guess the 3d people will be in for a shock when they find out the DAZ and stock skins in poser used on their adult art also require 2257 because they use real people as skin models