Jimbo, you are correct. There is a NARROW situation where you can have models in compliance with 2256. HOWEVER... you cannot mix and match, You cannot have a 2256 compliant image next to an image of someone fucking. The images themselves are not important as much as presentation is. Your intent, under the law, is as important as any single image.
You cannot have a nude 15 year old on a website called "schoolgirls fucking". The intent is against 2256.
Quote:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Sec. 2256. Prev | Next
Sec. 2256. - Definitions for chapter
For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1)
''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
''sexually explicit conduct'' 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;
(3)
''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4)
''organization'' means a person other than an individual;
(5)
''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6)
''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7)
''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8)
''child pornography'' 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, where -
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D)
such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9)
''identifiable minor'' -
(A)
means a person -
(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 person's 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
|
If I was you, I would be getting lawyer really quick - you have revealed yourself in public, and the phone calls and emails have already started. Your done.
You might also want to check this out:
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Jane Boyle, announced the unsealing of a three-count federal indictment against a former Dallas Police Officer Garry Layne Ragsdale, 34, and his wife, Tamara Michelle Ragsdale, 32, residents of Fort Worth, Texas.
The indictment, returned in late March, charges each defendant with one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of mailing obscene material and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 2.
The indictment charges that from April 1998 to July 1998, the Ragsdales conspired together, and with others, to sell and distribute obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes through the Internet and the United States mail. The indictment alleges that the Ragsdales owned, managed and maintained a Web site called "geschlecht.com." The web page was named "The Rape Video Store," where the Ragsdales offered obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes, which they categorized on the Web site as the "Real Rape Video Series" and the "Brutally Raped Video Series."
The Ragsdales posted graphically obscene descriptions of the videotapes on their Web site. They duplicated and mailed the tapes from their home after customers paid for the videos with a credit card. Visa, MasterCard, DiscoverCard, are you listening? Corporations Respond to CWA and AT&T Getting the Porn Ring Out of Its Collar (with Visa update).
If convicted on all counts, however, the Ragsdales each face up to 20 years imprisonment and a $750,000 fine. A trial is set for July 14, 2003, before Sidney A. Fitzwater, U.S. District Court Judge.
You better start deleting your hard drive and pulling your sites down now. The phone calls will be made.
Alex