|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Anybody following the proposed new 2257?
Well it seems congress is at it again. It has only been a couple of months since the new 2257 rules were thrust upon us. They are already being challenged in court, but no decsions have yet come down. There is a new, much more stringent version of 18 U.S.C. 2257 being debated by the house right now. It has been attached to another child protection act. It hasn't been considered by the senate yet and there are still hurdles to be overcome in the house, but momentum is building to tighten the regulations even more. What distinguishes this new version from the current version are a few things, but in particular, it now applies to nearly all depictions of mere nudity. As written, this site, for example, might well be subject to 2257 record keeping. Analysts seem to think that mainstream Hollywood movies with limited nudity and simulated sex would be subject to the same restrictions. It also broadens the definition of producer to include the distribution chain. Under some interpretations, even the video store, selling a dVD, for example, would be required to keep the records as well. Aparently some lawyers feel that, to some extent, this will add ammunition to their claims that congress is out of control and 2257 is simply crossing the line. However, everyone seems to agree that it is impossible to know what a court would finally rule. That is particularly true since we will have two new Supreme Court Justices who will probably move the Court more to the right than it already is. In any event, there is an interesting article published on Ynot. Here is the link. Don't take it as gospel since the final draft has yet to be passed and all of this analysis is being done on preliminary releases of the new statute. However, it is scary to think that congress does not believe that they have gone far enough. So Tyler, are you ready to maintain copies of the ID's of every model, posted by every photographer on this site that is in some state of undress? Here's the link: http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modl … e&sid=9763 Sep 15 05 08:44 pm Link WOW I am moving to Europe where the Germans behind the wall are more free!!!!! They tore it down and rebuilt it here Crap when did that happen on coffee break Sep 16 05 12:11 am Link Here is a bit more analysis on it... It is ALREADY OUT OF THE HOUSE AND SENT TO THE SENATE This was also posted to another thread in the model matters section where the subject has come up. ------- We, myself and some colleagues in the business, have been doing an analysis of Pence's bill for two days... it was only intorduced on the 14th of September. This bill H.R. 3726 has already been passed by the house 371 - 52 and sent to the Senate. It is far far more onerous than you think. 1) The record keeping requirements of 2257 DO NOT take into account any age requirement. Thus, the records, where they are required, involve very specific record keeping on EVERY model. 2) 2257 exempted (before Pence's amendment) images of "simulated" sexually explicit content. UNLESS there was ACTUAL sexually explicit content the images were exempt from record keeping. Pence's bill does away with that distinction and includes simulated sexually explicit content as well as actual content. 3) 2257 also exempted (before Pence's amendment) images of nudity alone. Pence's bill will include within the record keeping requirements of 2257 at 2257(h), nudity ALONE as defined in 2256 (2)(A)(v)"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;" but which is further defined in 2256(B)"For purposes of subsection (B) [1] of this section, âsexually explicit conductâ? meansâ (iii)graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;" and which is even further defined in 2256(10) "âgraphicâ?, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted;" 4) Pence's bill requires that a broad range of previously exempt images be brought under the 2257 record keeping rules. The actual detailed mechanics of the rules are 28 CFR Part75. This is retrospective for 10 to 15 years and apply to images made from a certain date either 1995 or 1990. If you don't have and can't produce the REQUIRED records the images are effectively useless. Part of the required records involve keeping and being able to produce ACTUAL copies of ACTUAL MODEL ID showing their full (REAL) name; date of birth; any other name or stage name by which they have EVER been known; ect... and the kinds of ID are specified (college or work ID cards, for example, are NOT acceptable for this purpose - the ID used MUST be types that are government issued and traceable such as passports or driver's licenses). Most photographers will have model releases; some will have examined the model's ID but not kept copies of the actual ID; some will have accepted ID that is not of an approved type. Images made on this basis will probably NOT be supportable by suitable records for 2257 purposes. When images are transferred - for example between a photographer and a website - then the photographer (primary producer) is required to produce his records and furnish them to the web (or any other) publisher, distributor, exhibitor, ect. who then must establish their own records database. 5) Under 2257, and where records have previously been required, the scope of who was required to keep those records was limited. Distributors and retailers didn't have to keep or maintain copies of the records. Until the recent changes to 28 CFR Part75, in June 2005, even websites didn't have to maintain actual records - only a reference to the holder of the records. Under Pence's bill EVERYONE in the chain of production down to retail sellers / exhibitors will be required to keep a set of records INCLUDING the ID copies. Ditto for publishers... including web publishers like ModelMayhem. The same would be true, after Pence, for an art gallery; or any other distributor / exhibitor / seller with commercial interest in the images. These ID records MUST be cross referenced to such as URL's where the model's image appears; or publications, if printed; and there is a lot more to he detailed record keeping ins-and-outs in 28 CFR Part75. 6) As a result of, among other cases, US v Knox, even some clothed images (think here Calvin Kline ads) may fall foul of the 2256 definition of "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"... Knox established that even non-nude images where the the genitals or pubic area was "defined" even though not "exposed" could be held to be sufficiently graphic and lascivious to run foul of the law. Think bikini, under ware or lingerie shots. Make no mistake here, this Pence amendment will impact everyone in photography, publishing, distribution, web publishing, and many, many others in the chain of production, distribution and even retailing. It will affect big Hollywood studios, broadcasters, and individual fine arts photographers. It will affect legitimate nudist publishers who were previously exempt; it will affect sex education and health publishers and websites; it will definitely affect the legitimate modelling / advertising industries where we all KNOW that 14 (or even younger) - 17 YO models are used in ways that would run foul of the 2256 definitions where previously they did not (topless or partial or implied nudity) or posing in clothed work in ways that would run foul of the definition of "graphic" and in light of the US v Knox ruling. The only saving grace here is that at least one Congressman - Robert "Bobby" Scott of Virginia actually pointed out to the House committee that Pence's bill, as written, was inconsistent with both previous Supreme Court rulings on protected (artistic / commercial) speech and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The House committee dismissed his objection and passed the bill anyway. It now goes to the Senate. If passed into law there is every chance that thirty seconds after that happens someone is going to file for an injunction to prevent it from being enforced. Studio36 Sep 16 05 04:54 am Link o.k. - so, for those of us who are new to this, can you please put this in simpler terms? sorry to be dense - Julia Sep 16 05 06:56 am Link DragonFlyImage wrote: I think the move to Germany`s not a bad idea.....I`m READY to move back there! Sep 16 05 07:32 am Link Thank god for Canada. Tell you guys what, i'll house a couple of you but you have to give over some trade secrets in payment. Sep 16 05 07:37 am Link I always thought laws were to protect the innocent. Who is this law protecting? Who wrote the bill to begin with. And think about it. How much money is it costing the tax payer for congress to pass a law that does not serve any purpose. Sep 16 05 07:50 am Link Julia Gerace wrote: Simpler terms?... these laws and the regulations that come from them are so complex that even lawyers are having fits interpreting them. Besides the text of the 2 controlling laws (18USC p:1 c:110 s:2256 and s:2257) themselves, the actual detailed regulations on the who, what, when, where and how of record keeping alone, in 28CFR part75, run to pages and pages. What I have written above, in the long message, IS in simple and general terms and still doesn't touch on the specifics. Sep 16 05 08:29 am Link keep good records and as long as your not trying to make a buck with them (them being the photos on a website), this doesnt really pertain to you. Sep 16 05 08:38 am Link mag-jr wrote: Hmmm, if you are saying take pictures and never use them for any purpose, then you are probably right. I make my living in this business. What is the point of shooting but not being able to convert my efforts into profit? Sep 16 05 09:10 am Link mag-jr wrote: Not true... if they are on a website they are PUBLISHED. The commercial or non-commercial aspect doesn't matter in the least. If they are published they are subject to the record keeping requirement. Sep 16 05 09:47 am Link mag-jr wrote: This is not very accurate, anyone doing any type of nudes should know what they are doing....in terms of record keeping. Art, porn, erotic, etc.........it doesn't matter anymore. Nudes are nudes where the government is concerned. And it doesn't apply to just paysites, it applies to ANY site. Even if the photographer is just showcasing his work, he can some under the scrunity of the law. Sep 16 05 09:59 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Never mind the use of the word "lacivious"... go back to my long message at the part marked "3)" and you see that they further use the word "graphic" and that is further defined as NUDE (ANY PART OF the genitals and pubic area) Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Introduced on Monday the 12th of September - passed and out of the House on the 14th - and sent to the Senate who is expected to pass it. Then on the Shrub for signing into law. Sep 16 05 10:01 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Key word in the quote of me is "keep good records" If you dont have a website, your in a much better position to publish, sell and have the images as they're going from you to the buyer. If you have a website where you have a lot of affiliates, that's where the problem becomes. If you publish images on your site, you and maybe your hosting company (acording to the new rules) will have to keep the info, but again, nothing will change much from the way it should be. Sep 16 05 10:21 am Link I think this is really bad for models as well. Talk about invasion of privacy! They're naked in photos (their own doing - no problem - nothing wrong with that) that are most likely on the web and now they have to give out their home address - LOL!!! Sep 16 05 10:22 am Link Yea it's a big mess. There was some concern when the new (old new) laws hit the fence as in canada, it's against the law to give out such info. As a paysite owner, I'd never give out info to affiliates as once word got out, everyone would become one just to get their favorite talent's info. I wonder if gov sees the stupidity in their claims? Sep 16 05 10:28 am Link Yeah, I always wanted to know where Jenna Jameson lives! All I need to do is get a paysite and buy some of her content - yay! Sep 16 05 10:39 am Link I think in some ways people on this site are adding to this as a problem. This caught my eye in the link posted earlier in this thread: âWe specifically, in my bill, close a loophole that exists in federal law today that allows pornographers who produce child pornography at home with digital cameras, Polaroid cameras, or video cameras, downloaded on their home computers, to actually escape prosecution,â? Pence said through a statement on his website. âItâs time to protect the kids, itâs time to move the Child Safety Act, and itâs time to pass the Child Pornography Prevention Act as part of it tomorrow.â? Now i have been doing record keeping since i started doing photos back in the early 80's. They seem to be trying to fix a problem involving the new digital age and porn by the everyday user. It also happens to effect certain sex industy's which it is suppost to do. It is too easy for people to come up with fake ID's to prove they are over 18 when they are actualy only 15 and they do porn. Years later the manufacturer is going bankrupt because everybody found out she was actualy under 18 when she did the filming (child porn). Proper ID records are to help everybody and stop people from knowingly do a film with a underaged person and falling back on "Thier ID says they are 18". The digital age needs this real bad, its too easy for some nobody to take video or photos of your kids in adult poses and put it online. This gives the law a way to prosicute legaly without there being any "Well ...... how do we negotiate this one" attitudes. Keep your records and you are safe. Sep 16 05 11:33 am Link As for Tyler keeping records.....He can do it all digitaly and keep it all on a DVD-RW or a few DVD-RW disks. It is the persons responsibility to make sure Tyler has the correct info, all Tyler has to do it keep it. Digitaly is as good as having it in B&W. Of course Tyler having the website and all he should check all the data to be sure it is all true but there are ways to check everything online. I am sure the GOV will provide the info on a site to aquire correct info also or to verify info given. Sep 16 05 11:43 am Link studio36uk wrote: You and I agree on this one totally. I know it passed the house. It may well pass the senate. Hopefully some cooler minds will prevail, but I suspect it will be challenged instantly upon passage. Sep 16 05 11:51 am Link It's time to send some congressmen and senators into retirement, folks. November 2006. That's the only way to get their attention. Sep 16 05 11:57 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: If I have my own web site, will I need to give a copy of the documentation to the hosting company? Sep 16 05 11:57 am Link mag-jr wrote: If you publish your images and they fit within the definitions of 2257,(putting them on a website is publishing them), you must maintain records that comply with 18 U.S.C. 2257. I agree with you, it is much easier if you are just operating a single website and not selling them. Sep 16 05 12:00 pm Link QuaeVide wrote: I think you would have to wait until it is passed and they give out what is expected to know that. Sep 16 05 12:03 pm Link Peter Dattolo wrote: It (2257) states that you need to have photocopies of goverment issued ID's for every model posing nude. Sep 16 05 12:04 pm Link Peter Dattolo wrote: Sure, but he would have to have records of every model posted by every photographer for every nude or otherwise qualifying image on the site. Sep 16 05 12:11 pm Link Bill Tracy wrote: Depends on how you look at it. GOV ID is a drivers lisence and social security card. Any gov agency requires those already for identification. Most photogs do that now i would suspect. Sep 16 05 12:19 pm Link ***Post was removed*** EDIT: Guess one of the mods didnt like my post, it was removed. Sep 16 05 12:31 pm Link Time to clear the Clutter. NUDE images, With no sexual conduct ARE NOT included in this bill. Where do you get that Idea. The Way it would read is: (old) (1) the term âactual sexually explicit conductâ? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; `(1) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title The Only thing this bill does is Include the Virtual Kiddie Porn industry under the Umbrella. Nothing Else in the Bill has changed. Here is a List of EVERY change to 2257 (old) (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (new) (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of sexually explicit conduct; and (old) (b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conductâ (new) (b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of sexually explicit conductâ (old) (A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (new) (A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of sexually explicit conduct; and (old) (1) the term âactual sexually explicit conductâ? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; (new) (1) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title (please note that (C) and (D) were already removed from 2256) (old) (4) the term âperformerâ? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct. (new) (4) the term âperformerâ? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct. (old) (3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and (new) (3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; (NEW) (5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her delegee to conduct an inspection under subsection (c). (old) (h)(3) to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted (new) actually filming, videotaping, photographing; creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being; or digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct (old) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which (new) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture, or other matter which (old) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, whichâ (new) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, whichâ That is the complete change to 2257. It simply adds in Virtual Child Porn. Show me where it says "Any Nudity" Show me Anywhere where it changes the Record Keeping requirements. Show me anywhere where it says anything is retroactive. The record keeping requirements were established in 1990 and have not changed since then, except where noted in the last amendment to this section (the cross referencing. As Far as Child Pornography goes, This section has not changed..... (8) âchild pornographyâ? means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, whereâ (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (9) âidentifiable minorâ?â (A) means a personâ (i) (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the personâs face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor. (10) âgraphicâ?, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and (11) the term âindistinguishableâ? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults. Simply Put, The scene in Lolita, Where she is nude and simulating sex with Jeremy, is not Child Pornography because you see neither her nor his genitals or pubic area. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "Virtual Child Porn" is legally protected because there is no compelling First Amendment argument to exclude it from the Free Speech provisions. (such as the Exploitation of children) This new bill is an attempt to circumvent part of that ruling. Other Parts of the Bill: SEC. 4. PREVENTION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY USED AS EVIDENCE IN PROSECUTIONS. Prevents the Defendant from recieving a copy of the Child Porn in question, provided the government gives the defense attorney and his agents and experts access to it. SEC. 5. AUTHORIZING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ASSET FORFEITURE IN CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY CASES. Means they can not take proceeds from you for violation of the Child Porn act, and also makes it a RICO offense. SEC. 6. ENHANCING ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA POWER TO COVER OBSCENITY. Expanded to cover Distributors as well as producers of Child Porn / Obscenity. SEC. 7. PROHIBITING THE PRODUCTION OF OBSCENITY AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE Adds in Producing with intent to distribute (as a new offense so to speak) And adds Production to the penalties applied normally for transportation. Tyler needs not change a thing Again, This does not affect nudity. For the actual content of the bill see: H.R. 3726 IH For 2256 as it is now see: 18 USC 2256 for 2257 as it is now see: 18 USC 2257 Sep 16 05 01:08 pm Link Tyler, you sure look at everything a lot differently than everyone else. There are some wel respected attorneys who specialize in this kind of law that disagree with you. Did you read the article attached to the opening post? If you disagree with their assesments, I actually would be happy to hear it, I am just curious what it is they are saying that you find incorrect? Sep 16 05 01:18 pm Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: I am saying that my attorney, which btw is familiar with the Adult Industry, since part of our structure includes adult oriented material, Says the same thing I am saying in that Simply nudity does not make it porn. Sep 16 05 01:25 pm Link The changes had absolutely nothing to do with record keeping except to remove the word "Actual" from "Actual Sexually Explicit Conduct" Here is how the new 2257 would look After the Law is put into effect. § 2257. Record keeping requirements (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture, or other matter whichâ (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of sexually explicit conduct; and (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction. (b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of sexually explicit conductâ (1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performerâs name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations; (2) ascertain any name, other than the performerâs present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and (3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation. (c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times. (d) (1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law. (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this chapter or chapter 71, or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information. (e) (1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located. (2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section. (f) It shall be unlawfulâ (1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section; (2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section; (3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, whichâ (A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept and; (5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her delegee to conduct an inspection under subsection (c). (g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section. (h) As used in this sectionâ (1) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;(2) âidentification documentâ? has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title; (3) the term âproducesâ? means actually filming, videotaping, photographing; creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being; or digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and (4) the term âperformerâ? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct. (i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Sep 16 05 01:37 pm Link "2256(10) "âgraphicâ?, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted;" This section has been previously stated to claim that Playboy Style nudes are covered. Sep 16 05 01:46 pm Link "2256(10) "âgraphicâ?, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted;" This section has been previously stated to claim that Playboy Style nudes are covered. Sep 16 05 01:46 pm Link Yea Like I said earlier, I have some non nude paysites so when this went down, there were a LOT of people that sold their sites and moved south. Now that this NEW new law is coming, I think even more will get the frick out of dodge. Here's the problem as I see it, the small guys are the ones being truly affected by this. The large guys have corp lawyers and all that good stuff and laugh at all this.The sick asses that are doing the child p*rn aren't really going to abide by this law, so it's imho a direct attack on those that produce "adult" images. I agree, it's time to retire some of old heads who don't know any better. Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Sep 16 05 02:03 pm Link QuaeVide wrote: ISP's / Hosting companies are exempt from record keeping as long as they have no direct control of the content of your website / web pages or domain. Sep 16 05 02:23 pm Link mag-jr wrote: Don't worry it's against the law where I am also (UK) to process personal information to anyone outside the EU and where, like the US, there is no equivalent to the Data Protection Act. There must also be explicit permission to do so in any case from the model/talent. Sep 16 05 02:28 pm Link mag-jr wrote: Down south..."bible belt", err.....nevermind. Here's the problem as I see it, the small guys are the ones being truly affected by this. The large guys have corp lawyers and all that good stuff and laugh at all this.The sick asses that are doing the child p*rn aren't really going to abide by this law, so it's imho a direct attack on those that produce "adult" images. If you aren't already familiar with the case, I'd recommend reading about Phil Harvey & the legal retaliation that he launched following the governments attempt at shutting down Adam & Eve - not only did he win, but the gov. got to foot the legal bill. He was one of the small guys, everyone around him was being shut down & threatened for distribution of "obscene materials" [in Texas, that could consist of the dozen carrots you have in your crisper btw] - Phil had nothing to lose, they couldn't jail his wife b/c he didn't have one...and now he's pretty well set financially, puts alot of the A&E profits towards sex education in 3rd world countries. Go figure! Sep 16 05 02:35 pm Link Peter Dattolo wrote: The ISP / HOST is exempt BUT Tyler operates a moderated + membership / subscription website, as do many others, and as such he and the mods are considered to have control of the content - thus they are responsible and subject to record keeping... as opposed to, say, Usenet where there are no moderators and the (news)site is completely open to the public to post. Sep 16 05 02:38 pm Link I don't suppose any MODELS are keeping tabs on this sort of thing are they? *rolls eyes* I can't even count the number of 'models' I've asked for ID - just as standard practice [sorry no sordid secrets here] - and gotten the "huh?" *deer in the headlights* look. I normally make them a few extra photocopies to take with them and advise them to do some homework. Maybe I should just start charging babysitters fees. Likewise, when I model, I am more often that not the person who brings a photocopy of my ID with me - I've been asked for a copy of my ID a whopping ONE time. Again, it was for general safety of all parties involved, nothing lurid about it. Only years down the road and many shoots later did I realise I've been lucky enough to develop a working relationship with somebody who's proven not only to be one of the most creative artists I've collaborated with to date, but also one of the most respectful & intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure of working with in this industry. Go figure. Sep 16 05 02:56 pm Link |
