2257 regs published in full

[Toby]

Originally Posted by swedguy

...Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb

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.

[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

[Mr. Blue]

Reading over it...it's actually pretty strict
Some of the finer points look pretty fucked up.

[Mr. Blue]

From a secondary producer vantage point this is what I gather:

1. You have to have a digital record of the model's identification on hand. This will inevitably lead to sponsor content providers having to provide this information to their affiliates...I think. Either that or sponsor content will dry up as we know it

2. A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

3. 20 hours a week availability for inspection. No notice need to be given.

(f) Other law enforcement authority. These regulations do not
restrict the otherwise lawful investigative prerogatives of an
investigator while conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence. Notwithstanding any provision of this part
or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an
inspection.

Make sure you hide the before they come and make sure you hide all your bittorrent files

[stev0]

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.

Good idea..

These regulations are intended to prosecute child pornographers, I highly doubt if they'd use it to prosecute legitimate webmasters just for the hell of it. As long as you can come up with the records, I don't see why they would have a problem.

[Mishi]

Originally Posted by stev0

Good idea..

These regulations are intended to prosecute child pornographers, I highly doubt if they'd use it to prosecute legitimate webmasters just for the hell of it. As long as you can come up with the records, I don't see why they would have a problem.

You're kidding, right?

These regs have absolutely nothing to do with prosecuting CP. NOTHING. This is bureaucratic red tape intended to tie the hands of legitimate business operators.