2257 Question

[hunkhunter]

Like everybody else, I am a tad bit confused by the provisions of 2257. I have read the articles posted, the regulations from last year and the new law but cannot seem to formulate an answer to these questions. Does anybody have any idea...

(1) if photos of guys naked or guys with erections, but not masturbating or having sex, are covered by 2257?

(2) Has the term commercial every been defined as it relates to these statutes and regs?

[basschick]

an erection is iffy, but a judge could easily define it as explicit - or at least so says my lawyer, and i can sort of see it. also if the genitals are being shown lasciviously - which can be defined differently by different people - then naked can be explicit.

[Squirt]

(1) If the naked photos are used to promote adult content then they are classified as lascivious (my attorney tells me)

(2) Whether for commercial purposes, or not, all lascivious content is covered under the 2257 regs and needs to be documented as such :signhere:

[collegeboyslive]

(1) if photos of guys naked or guys with erections, but not masturbating or having sex, are covered by 2257?

if i read it right. Now ANY pictures that show even a bit of ones genitals need to be covered by 2257

[allboysvideo]

Regardless who is in your videos or on your site regardless if they are 18 or 80 naked and/or non-naked you should have release forms and ID's on everybody you film or take photos of.

[collegeboyslive]

anyone know the rules regarding LINKING to a picture or a feed site?

i was told that the rule of thumb is that if you disconnect your server from the internet then look at it, if the image or pic isnt physically on the server you are not respnsible for keeping 2257 on the stuff, but a 2nd opinion may be good.

[Northstar]

Here is a posting I just read on another forum. In regards to "(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

What is a "lascivious" image?
Many courts apply the so-called Dost test to determine if a given image is considered to be "lascivious" under the law. United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1987) set forth a six factor test:
Whether the genitals or pubic area are the focal point of the image;
Whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive (i.e., a location generally associated with sexual activity, such as a bed);
Whether the subject is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire considering her age;
Whether the subject is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
Whether the image suggests sexual coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity; and
Whether the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
This test requires a case-by-case analysis and is devoid of bright line rules.
How is the Dost Test applied in case law?
Nudity is not enough for a finding that an image is lascivious, but clothing does not mean a photo is in the clear: "a photograph of a naked girl might not be lascivious (depending on the balance of the remaining Dost factors), but a photograph of a girl in a highly sexual pose dressed in hose, garters, and a bra would certainly be found to be lascivious." United States v. Villard, 885 F.2d 117, 124 (3d Cir. 1989).

[gaybucks_chip]

anyone know the rules regarding LINKING to a picture or a feed site?

i was told that the rule of thumb is that if you disconnect your server from the internet then look at it, if the image or pic isnt physically on the server you are not respnsible for keeping 2257 on the stuff, but a 2nd opinion may be good.

We were advised to use the "average person" rule... if an average person looking at a page can tell it's on a remote server, you're OK, but if you think about it, the average FBI agent looking at a page may not understand that images on that page come from one server and the HTML comes from another...and trying to explain that to a jury wouldn't be fun.

With regard to the definition of explicit, it does indeed change with 4472, but the new definition is almost certainly an impermissible restriction on speech, as it imposes qualifications (recordkeeping) on at least some expression (nudity) that is clearly not obscene. Of course, with the winners we currently have on the Supreme Court, who knows what will come down.

[desslock]

Does this mean that if HBO shows Eyes Wide Shut again they need to keep 2257 information on all those lasciviously displayed genitals?

Or maybe an inspection of the estate of Stanley Kubrick would be appropriate?

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

Does this mean that if HBO shows Eyes Wide Shut again they need to keep 2257 information on all those lasciviously displayed genitals?

Or maybe an inspection of the estate of Stanley Kubrick would be appropriate?

Steve

There is a cleverly written exclusion in 4472 that says, in essence, something like "If the producer is subject to regulation by the FCC, or (something that applies to the movie industry, can't remember) then they are exempt from these requirements." That's another reason I think it will probably get struck down, because it amounts to discriminatory practices restricting speech.

[hunkhunter]

Thanks for all of the replies and input. It has been helpful. I see that I am not the only one confused. I guess it is going to take a court case for definition. The test info was helpful.

[collegeboyslive]

Oh i think you are FAR from being the only one confused. you ask 6 differnt attoureys and you will get 6 differnt answers.

with the sudden inspections I think it has all webmasters running around like headless chickens.

I think the porn movie producers actually have an easyer time than webmasters. they have no secondry stuff to deal with, they have the ids all ready and its a film - video - store situation.

[hunkhunter]

Well I know from vast experience working with attorneys in labor and education law, they always are quite conservative in their formal and informal opinions.

[basschick]

maybe so, but they are trying to protect us. after all, judges were first lawyers so expect that level or more of conservative attitude. you could end up with right-wing christian law enforcement charging you or right-wing christian judge deciding your case - the kind who cover the tits of famous statues. they're out there!

Well I know from vast experience working with attorneys in labor and education law, they always are quite conservative in their formal and informal opinions.

[EonFilms_Rocky]

I do feel for you guys over in the US, it seems to be never ending!

Atleast for now its a lot easier over here in Europe. Maybe you should all come over here...

If you greet me at the airport in nothing but a smile, I'm THERE!

Rocky