|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Changes to USC 2257 - This affects ALL nudity online
There are some major changes coming, and you need to brace yourself! Places you can read about this changes at... http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm and here: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm A direct quote from a site (thanks to a friend / isadora for pulling this out for me) Part of the relevant section reads: (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. --------------- Addition added July 01 - for all those people who are throwing fits because I dared assume that photos of nudes were affected by this..... chill out. My word, I have never seen so many people happy to jump all over anothers person case...just because Im trying to help inform folks. Geez. I am not a lawyer, I posted what I understood. Jun 29 05 06:49 pm Link That appears to apply to "explicit content" which is not the same as "nudity" - right?? GWC! Jun 29 05 06:53 pm Link From what I've seen, any nudity online...the rules are so generic that everyone who shows so much as a nipple are scrambling to make certain they cant get tagged by this. Jun 29 05 06:55 pm Link So what are we to do??! I mean, is this law going to go in affect and anyone caught will get in trouble? Just how severe and nitpicky are they going.. Shit this is wrong!! I mean I'm flabbergasted, and I don't really know what to say but - holy cow what a shit storm this will cause............... -Jessika Jun 29 05 07:00 pm Link don't blame me... i voted for Kerry... thank you Bush Justice Department for staying off The People's backs Jun 29 05 07:07 pm Link Posted by David Klein: Same here David, and to think it came down to us Ohioans... It's pretty sad and I was very upset when Kerry didn't become president... Pffft.. Jun 29 05 07:08 pm Link it's the sexually explicit part that's completely up for interpretation. It's the kind of guesswork that makes Howard Stern go crazy as well. We should all just shoot flowers--he he. Jun 29 05 07:11 pm Link Posted by Lady Atropos: Showing a nipple is not sexually explicit. Geeze, people. Jun 29 05 07:13 pm Link there was even a quote from a photographers lawyer on a previous thread about this basically he said no worries calm down ah the sky is falling yawn Jun 29 05 07:24 pm Link well - long story short.....its all pretty aloof and seems like something easily manipulated to anothers ends in terms of defining it as a law Jun 29 05 09:19 pm Link Posted by Lady Atropos: From what you've seen? Who mean someone's been prosecuted for nudity? Jun 29 05 10:26 pm Link Actually the idiots who are doing this say it is to protect minors so I have no doubt that any site depicting nudity will be at risk. If this law goes into play I can see many people losing what they have and the hardest hit will be smaller model owned sites instead of the large companies who do better record keeping. Hey whether you look at Playboy or watch Vivid video, porn is porn. Yes, some is hard core and some if soft core but this law will affect any site with nude images, period! You can't have it one way and not the other because it makes no sense, well this witch hunt makes no sense but I like others didn't vote for that dick in office! Jun 29 05 10:46 pm Link The largest initial problem will likely be the chilling effect it will have upon those not engaging in child pornography( the group that this law was enacted to prohibit. ) The ripple of fear is going to be pretty significant for those who are secondary providers .i.e those who manage/distribute content. No one is really sure yet how broadly this will be interpreted, what is likely (especially given who is in office) that certain groups will be targeted as both test cases for judicial review/analysis, and to further scare/silence those involved in anything remotely sexual on the internet. Jun 29 05 10:48 pm Link Im really glad this is going into affect, again about child porn... BUT most child porn sites/servers that host those sites..are NOT in the usa but are hosted in countries that have no laws to protect minors, or they do have laws..but are just not inforced...so it wont make much an impact Jun 29 05 11:21 pm Link Photo tech rules from most processing facilities is (such as Eckerds or Quatum, etc.): We can develop pictures of naked people if in the picture it is one naked person not touching themself anywhere (not even sexually). If it's more than one person, or more than one naked person in the image, and they're not touching themselves or anyone else, then it still might be ok. But we can't develop pictures of a naked person touching themself. And we can't develop pictures of a naked person being touched by anyone. And we can't develop pictures of more than on naked person touching themself or someone else. Naked minors and children are almost definite no-nos - unless it's obviously just a parent photographing junior running around in a diaper. Do these photos still get processed? Sure. What does this have to do with the new internet rule? Maybe nothing, but I'm hoping it gives some context / clarification. Jun 30 05 12:45 am Link Posted by Sara Green: Yes, but unfortunately there have been cases were photos of naked junior, taken by Mom have been turned into local authorities. Jun 30 05 01:56 am Link Hi there! Just wanted to add, that this law only counts for computer/server in US territory. So if you want to be save - get a european server and feel free to post as much nudity as you want... and jumpstart european economy ;o) Jun 30 05 02:04 am Link How are sites like MM and OMP affected? Jun 30 05 02:05 am Link 2 cents worth of info. 1. If your NOT INSERTING things where the sun don't shine or Spreading. then you are doing nothing wrong. 2. If you are Inserting things where the sun don't shine. or Spreading. MAKE sure you have 2 FORMS of ID on the Model (s) HOLDING them next to the face. And KEEP the HARD PRINTED model releases and copy of the ID's and you have nothing to worry about. And THE MODEL RELEASE NEED to be REAL NAMES. Not stage names. And make sure you have a folder ready if you get a notice of inspection. And bee ba daa beeeb thats all folks. PS as I wrote in an earlyer post on this subject. Put them in a Burn proof box JUST IN CASE. If you ever lost your model releases I'd Dump the photos. FAST. without ID's who knows KNOW is.. Thats the whole point of the law. The real porn industry is not even the least bit worried about this law. They learned their lesson from tracy lords. I do not shoot porn but this is sin city and I know people who do. ID ID ID ID ID ID simple. Jun 30 05 02:15 am Link Interesting, Mark's dog takes notes and checks all the HD of all who have responded to check. Jun 30 05 02:18 am Link Posted by Lady Atropos: Now, what part of FUCKING OR PLAYING WITH DILDOS don't any of you understand? Geezo. Nudes IS NOT sexually explicit conduct. Jun 30 05 02:20 am Link It is all based upon what the COMMUNITY thinks is engaged, sexually, explicit, conduct. Check your local Supreme Court ruling. Jun 30 05 02:23 am Link Posted by Sara Green: Technically speaking in a court of law. If some DA really pushed this I bet this could be considered Manafacture of child pronagraphy. And after they are printed, and the Mom or dad GAVE a copy of said photo to another family member. Again the Distrabution act Could be enforced. Jun 30 05 02:35 am Link I have heard worse. (heard on NPR or read in NY times not hearsay) Jun 30 05 02:43 am Link The term SEXUALLY EXPLICIT used in U.S.C. 2257 is actually defined in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, SS 2256, it reads: 2) âsexually explicit conductâ? means actual or simulatedâ (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; You can see that simulated is sufficiently actionable, and penetration is not a necessary component to bring one under scrutiny. There are any number of artists (not pornographers) on this site who contain these sort of images and themes (lovemaking, masturbation, SM). Jun 30 05 02:50 am Link All politics is Local. Jun 30 05 02:52 am Link Posted by marksora: LOL. I read all kinds of stuff when I'm taking a No. 2. I don't just "sit" there, stew and ponder life's glorious mysteries. Jun 30 05 03:16 am Link Posted by Joe K. Perez: simulated is one important keyword to consider... Jun 30 05 03:48 am Link Posted by XtremeArtists: This is an extremely poorly written and in my mind overbroad law. Jun 30 05 03:49 am Link Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by Joe K. Perez: simulated is one important keyword to consider... yeah, the term sexually explicit is defined in a section 2256 immediately prceeding 2257. Again, in my mind it's pretty broad. and UNLIKE what previous posters said, about you only have to worry about penetration or actual fucking is incorrect. Jun 30 05 03:53 am Link Posted by latex-fashions: This raises an important point for images that are destined to go beyond a single photographer's hands. Everyone in the affected distribution chain is expected to keep the required records...that means that the models pix ID, actual name and home address will be not only on a signed release in someone's burnproof box, but if the image has been distributed, in a manner that comes under 2257, then THOSE people will have models info as well. Jun 30 05 06:23 am Link QUESTION! It seems to me that these laws don't affect models in any way. Am I right? If not could someone tell me how it affects models? Jun 30 05 10:11 am Link Posted by Leila: Your real name, pix ID and home address will, if you doing work that requires such proof under 2257, reside with every primary and secondary producer of such materials. In otherwords, if you are working for a client or photographer, they will of course have access to such info. If the photographer, under terms of your release, sells the images to appear as content for (for instance) WOMEN WITH RED HAIR, website, that webmaster will have your personal info. If that provider (under terms of release with the photographer) sells the content, then that person (or distribution chain) has your private info as well. Jun 30 05 10:24 am Link dont hate me but I voted for Bush and Im glad they are getting this law out because if will help but obviously this isnt about just naked people, its about sexual conduct. I think that porn is just too much out there and probably will be but its important to keep it where it belongs - the oficial sites that wont let minors through. I dont know, its just that Im sick of seeing 10 year olds acting slutty and boys commenting with words they shouldnt even use... dear america then wonders why we have 12 yr olds getting abortion! sick. Lets think about others for once. Jun 30 05 07:44 pm Link Posted by Lady Atropos: No, it doesn't. It covers sexually explicit conduct. This law was passed almost 20 years ago. The only changes are to interpretive actions and rulings of DOJ that says the web is publishing, too. Portions of this law have been adjudicated as unconstitutional, and any prosecution under the remaining provisions would likely end up before a liberal court, again. Jun 30 05 10:40 pm Link Posted by ( ANT ) Mgaphoto: It went "into play" in 1989. Did these things happen? Jun 30 05 10:42 pm Link One interesting "side-effect" of enthusiastic enforcement of the law would be that sloppy bookkeeping by a legitimate "adult" business could lead to a child pornography charge. This may be what the creators of the law intended, of course. Jun 30 05 10:47 pm Link Posted by KM von Seidl: Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by Joe K. Perez: simulated is one important keyword to consider... yeah, the term sexually explicit is defined in a section 2256 immediately prceeding 2257. Again, in my mind it's pretty broad. and UNLIKE what previous posters said, about you only have to worry about penetration or actual fucking is incorrect. I didn't bother with simulation, or simulated as a keyword, because the idea behind it is to make the viewer think a couple is knockin da boots. If it makes one believe that's what's happening, then, for all intensive purposes, it's happening. Thus, it falls into the "sexually explicit" category. Implied, or not. Jun 30 05 10:47 pm Link Posted by David Klein: Senator Kerry has voted in support of 18 USC 2257 a lot more times than the number Bush has: zero. Jun 30 05 10:59 pm Link Posted by Joe K. Perez: Posted by marksora: LOL. I read all kinds of stuff when I'm taking a No. 2. I don't just "sit" there, stew and ponder life's glorious mysteries. Well, in fairness, that's because Bush isn't a member of congrss. he hasn't voted against it either. He can't. Jul 01 05 12:25 am Link |
