2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

I've been prepared for this since last Fall. The line below is from the submit page rules on both of my TGP's.

"No Sexually Explicit content on your uploaded Thumbnail.
Your gallery may contain Sexually Explicit content, but the featured thumb may not.
Nudity is OK, but no penitration, oral to genital, or genital to genital contact. If
your gallery contains this content then don't let the script create the thumbnail."

However, if the focus of either site were a hardcore niche it wouldn't be practical.

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

ThumbTGPS are a very likely first target... head to the highest traffic sites around and start whacking!

Alex

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

Intersting. So if a model goes in for a softcore shoot and while changing clothes she touches her crotch and a single photo is taken then the entire shoot is considered sexually explicit? Secondary producers would have no way of knowing that happened.

Maybe in the morning she's doing face photos and that afternoon does a hardcore scene. The face images are now subject?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

Definitely some food for thought. Under that interpretation even if I had a 100% non-explicit adult site, I'd still need to have to a statement from the original producer of each "set" stating that it is non-explicit. That's where I begin to have constitutional issues with 2257. This quickly becomes a situation of guilty until proven innocent.

I wish the FSC success in getting the court to throw this out.

[Emperor]

Hi guys,

I read a lot about softcore thumbs, cropped images, banners, etc.

But what about a text link site with no images ? That is to say not one single image on the entire page/site.

The text links would of course lead to hardcore galleries, external galleries that are not owned by the text link site.

What do you think ?

Emperor