2257 question
I was reading the met art 2257 link
MET ART / Diclaimer 2257 / Copyright Info
and they claim that they are exempt because the content is not sexually explicit.
How can that be?
They are still pictures of completely naked women.
Don't they have to be able to prove their models are of age?
Or is 2257 really that fucked?
under the regulations set to go in effect very soon, that statement is incorrect.
they are probably expecting an injunction to be granted before the new regulations go into effect...
Might be difficult to prove with a name like "most erotic teens"
Aren't lesbians licking pussy being sexually explicit - I think I've seen pics with that action in their promo stuff.
I apologise to ADX members for my constant reminders that Lord Aga and Netpond are scammers
Money Bookers - now with ATM withdrawals via MasterCard
You need to read the definition of sexually explicit, which is found is 18 U.S.C. § 2256.
Bottom line, full nude isn't necessarily sexually explicit. Whether their content fall within that definition as it applies to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 is a matter for lawyers.
Last edited by Toby; January 6th, 2009 at 05:10 PM.
My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs | Bevy Of Babes | Babes In Boots | Well Heeled Women | Dressing For Sex | Stocking Vixens
Yes this new 2257 stuff is going to suck. I ended up converting my TGP type sites to top lists for now and just have links directly to tours.
I think I'm going to go more into review/top list hybrid type sites that have no explicit images. It's just not worth dealing with the 2257 stuff, because there really isn't a way for a affiliate as a secondary producer to be legal.
Not unless you are buying all your own content with the 2257 info, because affiliate programs sure aren't going to hand it out.
They are a few pics that will fall into this definition.(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” 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;
I apologise to ADX members for my constant reminders that Lord Aga and Netpond are scammers
Money Bookers - now with ATM withdrawals via MasterCard
if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere
the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration. if it's fought in court, as the FSC claims it will, I suspect that it will become a non-issue for us. the new regs appear deeply flawed from my layman's perspective, and if they don't go into effect then I doubt new ones would be forthcoming.
if the FSC doesn't get its ass in gear soon though, then we're fucked if this comes to pass.
Yea I'm sure it's more of a Bush project, but if the FSC fails to do anything it will go into law reguardless. I mean how much longer do we have till it's active? It can't be long.Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere
the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration. if it's fought in court, as the FSC claims it will, I suspect that it will become a non-issue for us. the new regs appear deeply flawed from my layman's perspective, and if they don't go into effect then I doubt new ones would be forthcoming.
if the FSC doesn't get its ass in gear soon though, then we're fucked if this comes to pass.
I think it's a matter of weeks or days for hardcore content, and another two months + for nudity. not sure though.
Most of it becomes effective on the 17th. The rest require 90 days rather than 30 days so not until mid March.
My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs | Bevy Of Babes | Babes In Boots | Well Heeled Women | Dressing For Sex | Stocking Vixens
Met has always walked a fine line and at one time even used underage models under the cover of art. In fact CCBill also made the bulk of its money years ago from underage model sites. They have always been the biller of choice when it came to anything that would be somewhat questionable or possibly unethical. For years i refused to touch anything with MET but if their content ever got me in shit these days i would sue Visa for leading me to believe they were legal.
Get on the iPad bandwagon with Nude iPad Babes from Flip's Cash
actually 2257 was a clinton project originally...
you are correct basschick, my mistake.
it's the web application and the increased attention which I intended to refer to. the original 2257 regs only covered certain delivery formats, not the internet, as I recall (might be wrong).
That is correct. It was the Traci Lords scandal that spawned this whole 2257 mess back in the early to mid 1980's when the World Wide Web didn't yet exist.
My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs | Bevy Of Babes | Babes In Boots | Well Heeled Women | Dressing For Sex | Stocking Vixens
Obama's AG pick, Eric Holder, isn't exactly good news.if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere
the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration.
Obama’s AG Pick Has a Censorship Goon Past The Legal Satyricon
Better set my cropper to 5x8 px, so they wont have a case
Just wondering, how many of you have already been pursued by any 2257 threats, and what was the outcome so far ?
AskDamage(Ro)X
Lets trade:
Traffic trade list
Want the see whats next in the world of traffic scripts ? Have a look at the TradeControl http://www.controlscripts.com, PM for free beta accounts !
and people wondered why I preferred the candidate who dated a stripper over the candidate who is stuck in church
There have only been just over a dozen 2257 inspections so far. All of them were strictly primary producers, with one exception who was also a secondary producer.
To date there have not been any inspections of strictly secondary producers, and given the number of primary producers they have on their list vs the number of inspectors I don't expect that will change.
My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs | Bevy Of Babes | Babes In Boots | Well Heeled Women | Dressing For Sex | Stocking Vixens
That disclaimer was likely accurate at the time it was written, however with the recent changes to the regulations implementing Section 2257, it may need some revision.I was reading the met art 2257 link
MET ART / Diclaimer 2257 / Copyright Info
and they claim that they are exempt because the content is not sexually explicit.
How can that be?
They are still pictures of completely naked women.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
