Ty Simone wrote:
I can show you exactly where the logical of "nudity" being covered is wrong in the argument before.

And I will show you where "logical" of nudity is - exactly.

Reference to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter… refer to parts numbered as: (OLDER VERSION)
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conductâ€? means actual or simulated—
(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;

It is THIS that is being refered to in 2257(h) as sections (a) through (d) with respect to ADULT images. These now appear, based on the Cornell law website version dated “Release date: 2005-08-03â€? to be numbered with roman numerals as follows:

(LATEST VERSION)
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conductâ€? means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Thus the old text being struck from 2257(h) refers to “(A) through (D)â€? whereas the new text being added refers to “(A)(i) through (v)â€? The effect is to incorporate the last part of the 2256(2)(A) section “(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;â€? into 2257(h) where previously it was not there (excluded)

ADITIONAL NOTES ON 2256

2256(B) For purposes of subsection (8)(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conductâ€? means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

2256 ALSO DEFINES GRAPHIC IN THE CONTEXT OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT
(10) “graphicâ€?, 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

THIS WOULD APPEAR TO ENCOMPASS MERE NUDITY, IF IT MEETS THAT TEST, WITH RESPECT TO 2256 AND, THIS, DUE TO PENCE’S CHANGES WILL ALSO INCORPORATE MERE NUDITY INTO 2257(h) FOR RECORDKEEPING PURPOSES OF ADULT IMAGES.

As for record keeping... all the detailed requirements are referenced in 2257 to " regulations" and those regulations that are refered to are specifically the regulations contined in 28 CFR Part75

Now as for nudity. If nudity is proscribed in 2256 (for images of children) then it is incorporated also into 2257(h) as well as Pence's amendment adds that last section (v) of 2256(2)(A) to the adult mix. Thereafter, the definitions in 2256(B) and 2256(10) ALSO APPLY.

200 of the best adult industry lawyers can't ALL be wrong. Pence has not redefined porn but he has brought into the record keeping requirement images that have never been previously subject to the record keeping requirement.... because before Pence they have been EXEMPT. They have been EXEMPT because 2257(h) was silent on the subject. It isn't silent any longer.

Studio36

hypolux wrote:
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.

Once this is law and as the word spreads those photographers may find that they have a lot of images on their hands that they can not sell or that no legitimate publisher (paper or web) will touch without all of the records... including actual copies of the ID.

Some paper publishers have had a positive ID requirement for years... others have not, relying only on model releases and the producer's declaration for simple nudity. The more recent changes to the 28 CFR part 75 regulations (June 2005) brought into the fray web publishers as "secondary producers" requiring them to keep a set of records. Pence appears to bring mere nudity in also as well as "simulated" acts... if it meets the 2256 definition of "graphic".

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Once this is law and as the word spreads those photographers may find that they have a lot of images on their hands that they can not sell or that no legitimate publisher (paper or web) will touch without all of the records... including actual copies of the ID.

Some paper publishers have had a positive ID requirement for years... others have not, relying only on model releases and the producer's declaration for simple nudity. The more recent changes to the 28 CFR part 75 regulations (June 2005) brought into the fray web publishers as "secondary producers" requiring them to keep a set of records. Pence appears to bring mere nudity in also as well as "simulated" acts... if it meets the 2256 definition of "graphic".

Studio36

As far as photographers who shoot "nude" are concerned that don't know about this law - I say screw 'em for not doing their bloody homework.  I'm 27 (yeah ancient, I know) - at the most you could call me a trained hobbyist who shoots part-time when able or have the creative urge to do so - and even I know about this law, in part because I have an academic background in studying "obscenity law" as defined by the US Govt, and in part b/c I used to do figure modeling so I figured ignorance would be far from bliss if I DIDN'T know my rights.  I don't have much sympathy for Models and Photographers who shoot nudes or whos work has a implied sexual emphasis (sorry, the overuse of the word "erotic" makes me nauseous) - I hate to sound nasty, but Good riddance if you're going to just strip down for a quick buck, have a change of heart, and come back bitching or making demands.  I've seen so much more bullshit get slung around than could ever be needed because people just don't have a clue what the legal dimensions of their "hobby" can entail.  Besides, the herd could use some thinning anyway.   

.....and good luck to whoever can come to some definition of "graphic" that yields some universal consensus - i'm not holding my breath, but i'd love to hear if someone squares this circle.

Weldphoto wrote:
I am all in favor of protecting children. I suspect we all are. If that is the intent and wording of this bill then fine. Ty in his very helpful posts seem to suggest that this is the case. Perhaps this bill isn't anything to fear.

If this bill is not to your liking, then don't waste your time posting here. Spend the time emailing and sending a hard copy of your email to your elected representative. If he or she doesn't hear from you, then how will he or she know you don't agree. Exercise the rights and liberties we have and contact your representatives. If you don't, then don't bitch about what they do.

Perhaps this bill will open up an whole new market - nude modeling for people over 30. No need to worry about child porn questions then!

George,
I agree with your points about exercising one's rights and liberties, being involved in the political process, etc.
....But you don't REALLY think this legislation is about Child Pornography do you?!
!L

Weldphoto wrote:
Perhaps this bill will open up an whole new market - nude modeling for people over 30. No need to worry about child porn questions then!

The interesting thing is that there is no upper age limit in respect to the record keeping. The model could look, and be, 75 toothless, wrinkles and all, and the producer... et al... still required to meet all the record keeping requirements.

It's NOT about child porn. It's not about assurance that the model is 18 and over. It's about knocking the adult / porn business on it's ass.

Studio36

hypolux wrote:
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.

Point taken....never have thought of this, (hey, you wanna babysit?) but I will be sure to follow this advice from here on out. Thankyou.
Becky

studio36uk wrote:
It's NOT about child porn. It's not about assurance that the model is 18 and over. It's about knocking the adult / porn business on it's ass.

Studio36

And here's what I find funny,

The adult/porn industry has MORE money then the gov!!! coming in at over 6billion dollars a year and growing, porn guys have a lot more money to invest then the gov has time.

CS-I-PHOTO wrote:
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.

The changes were meant to make it harder to do internet adult sites, magazines and such. The anti porn people in the congress are trying the best they can to rid the country of it all. I have and do run a couple adult sites myself and I noticed boatloads of adult pay sites, some of which were extremely popular and made millions of dollars a yea, shut down the day the law went into effect. Some came back because they were smart and had the necessary compliance, some did not. I was smart and covered all bases. I get all the id required and paperwork no matter what kind of shoot I do.

studio36uk wrote:

And I will show you where "logical" of nudity is - exactly.

Reference to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter… refer to parts numbered as: (OLDER VERSION)
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conductâ€? means actual or simulated—
(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;

It is THIS that is being refered to in 2257(h) as sections (a) through (d) with respect to ADULT images. These now appear, based on the Cornell law website version dated “Release date: 2005-08-03â€? to be numbered with roman numerals as follows:

(LATEST VERSION)
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conductâ€? means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Thus the old text being struck from 2257(h) refers to “(A) through (D)â€? whereas the new text being added refers to “(A)(i) through (v)â€? The effect is to incorporate the last part of the 2256(2)(A) section “(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;â€? into 2257(h) where previously it was not there (excluded)

No, You are misreading.
(A) through(D) covers all of (A) whether it was (A)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(x)(l) or whatever.
That change was put in because (B) (C) and (D) were removed by a previous bill. (actually compressed in (A) and (B)
“(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;â€? Was ALWAYS considered obscene. It was the term the Supreme Court used Way back when to draw a line in the sand between art and Porn.

ADITIONAL NOTES ON 2256

2256(B) For purposes of subsection (8)(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conductâ€? means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

2256 ALSO DEFINES GRAPHIC IN THE CONTEXT OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT
(10) “graphicâ€?, 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

THIS WOULD APPEAR TO ENCOMPASS MERE NUDITY, IF IT MEETS THAT TEST, WITH RESPECT TO 2256 AND, THIS, DUE TO PENCE’S CHANGES WILL ALSO INCORPORATE MERE NUDITY INTO 2257(h) FOR RECORDKEEPING PURPOSES OF ADULT IMAGES.

Again, You are misreading what it says.
(10) “graphicâ€?, 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

It must have sexual content and Have genitals Visible to be Graphic.

As for record keeping... all the detailed requirements are referenced in 2257 to " regulations" and those regulations that are refered to are specifically the regulations contined in 28 CFR Part75

Now as for nudity. If nudity is proscribed in 2256 (for images of children) then it is incorporated also into 2257(h) as well as Pence's amendment adds that last section (v) of 2256(2)(A) to the adult mix. Thereafter, the definitions in 2256(B) and 2256(10) ALSO APPLY.

200 of the best adult industry lawyers can't ALL be wrong. Pence has not redefined porn but he has brought into the record keeping requirement images that have never been previously subject to the record keeping requirement.... because before Pence they have been EXEMPT. They have been EXEMPT because 2257(h) was silent on the subject. It isn't silent any longer.

Studio36

"200 of the best adult industry lawyers can't ALL be wrong" ?
Sure they can.
I suppose 250,000 computer experts could not be wrong about Y2K either.

The adult industry lawyers, like the adult industry itself, hates change.
However, let's assume for an instance that you are 100% correct in your assertion about nudity.

Since the record keeping requirements are set for 1990 (yes that part has not change)
Any movie produced after 1990 that has nudity but no sexual content would be affected.
Each and every one would need to be pulled off the selves of BlockBusters, and every other video store in the country.
Do you really think the government will pass a law like that?
It would not have the slightest chance in the world of getting through, and if it did, I guarentee you the next congress / senate / president elected would be so far over to the other side it would be repealed the day they went into session.

No, The change affects a loophole only.
Fear mongerers (amoungst them Lawyers that would love people like Tyler to come to them and say "help me, I need to protect myself from this law" - "Ok, $25,000 please".) will have people think the world is going to end, simply to get lemmings to jump on board, and others to pay big bucks they do not need to.

I will say it again.
My lawyer does specialize in Adult industry stuff. He stated quite clearly, It does not affect me.


Now, he has offered a suggestion as to why other lawyers may be in fear.
I am going to paraphrase it, so it is my understanding of what he said.

The digital image, will now be considered the same as a created image.
Therefore, the minute the DV file is created, it must attach with the record keeping requirements.
That image is usually not downloaded immediately, and in some cases is transferred in it's entirety to a seperate location for processing.
Now, The minute it is transferred from site A to Site B, Site B becomes liable until the documentation arrives. But, Remember Site A is also Liable as well, they have a copy.
The loophole being closed does have a legitimate use in the adult industry, and that use is being taken away with the illegitimate use.

NOW, if the Adult industry lawyers go to a website and say "Hey this law is bad because it makes it harder on the adult industry to produce porn." Who is going to care outside the adult industry?

If they go on and scream "You are losing more civil rights, This bill will put your grandma in prison!" and then show scraps that seem to indicate (as you have shown them) this is the case, THEN people will get up in arms.

I am not saying you are wrong or anything of the such.
I am saying you are being fed bad information.

Glamour Boulevard - The law IS protecting Children.
The Law now makes it a crime simply to photograph / film child porn (was not a crime before until the images were put into a medium)