2257 regs published in full

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by airdick

No.

From what I can tell, the regulations state that you may include an exemption statement for "actual sexual conduct" (defined in 2257(h)) that predates the regulations, or simulated sexual conduct, or a combination of the two:

"Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part."

Additionally, the following comments from the DOJ were published in the Federal Register along with the new regulations:

"One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation.
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the
producer was exempt from the regulation."

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

Definition of sexual explicit here.

I would recommend that if the girl gets naked, you need to get ID.

Alex

[madleinx]

Hi Alex, you've been a tremendous help with this thread! I have a lil question....The regs state that we only need records for the content described in 2256 sections A-D, right? That means "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is not included. Do we really need docs for simple nudity (no pink, no spreads)? Thanks!

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

Definition of sexual explicit here.

I would recommend that if the girl gets naked, you need to get ID.

Alex

I don't agree. 2257 uses 2256 to define sexually explicit as :

As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; E is not included.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

I understood that. Section 75.7 is the only place an exemption statement is covered, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that an exemption statement only applies to the cases covered in 75.7.